Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 17 - Evidence - April 23, 2007
OTTAWA, Monday, April 23, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:07 p.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are convened this afternoon to continue our order of reference to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
Under this reference, we have chosen to look at the new United Nations Human Rights Council, which has been transformed from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in conjunction with an overall United Nations human rights reform. We have received witnesses here, and we have also travelled to Geneva to meet with officials at the United Nations, our own embassy and others, NGOs included, that work with the field. Today we will complete this round of our investigations and hearings before we file a report.
I am pleased that we have before us today Isabelle Duplessis, Associate Professor from the Faculty of Law, University of Montreal, and Jean-Louis Roy, President, Rights and Democracy. Accompanying Mr. Roy is Lloyd Lipsett, Senior Assistant to the President, who I understand will not make a submission but will assist in questions. Welcome. We usually like a short opening statement, and then senators generally have sufficient questions that I have to remind them of the time frame. I hope we have a good exchange. We look forward to your perspectives on the new Human Rights Council.
[Translation]
Isabelle Duplessis, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to thank the committee members of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights for having invited me to share some of my thoughts. I will talk about the mandate of the new Human Rights Council. The mandate is basically to promote and protect human rights and it represents the continuation of the mandate of the former Human Rights Commission.
When you look at the mandate and analyze the effectiveness and the way the new council operates, you must never lose sight of the reason it was created in the first place. In the wider reform of the United Nations, people wanted a new council and the abolition of the Human Rights Commission. That is because there had been a very high-profile event. It had become obvious that the commission had become politicized and this was a bad thing. Why had this happened?
Because it had become completely dominated by votes by regional blocks. So, during the Cold War, the East Block and the West Block confronted each other on the commission, which led to its paralysis. The council is supposed to change the old pattern. Indeed, with the end of the Cold War, it was possible to imagine and hope for change.
There are two particular things the council must accomplish and which I would like to draw the senators' attention to: the universal periodic review and the review of special procedures.
The universal periodic review is a new initiative specifically designed to address criticism regarding the politicization of the former Human Rights Commission. How? By evaluating every country on its own, without discrimination, as far as their human rights record is concerned, including the council members, of which there are 47, whereas the former commission had 53 members. The point is to address the criticism whereby there was a double standard, by basically implementing this universal periodic review which, I would like to point out but which you are probably already aware of — we know nothing about. In fact, a working group is in the process of studying this issue within the council. The most important decisions will be taken in June 2007. We will have to wait for this session to see what will happen.
The second specific task the new council will have is to review special procedures. I would say that it is the standards control system inherited from the former Human Rights Commission. This special procedure includes, amongst other things, special rapporteurs for certain areas, for a certain number of specific rights, but also special ``country'' reports which focus on one country in particular, which is criticized if need be. So basically criticism is levelled at a country, but many countries view this as a sanction. I would say that a lot of countries do not like the idea of having rapporteurs.
Apart from conducting the universal periodic review, the council must also review special procedures, but by building on the work of the former commission. I want to point out that the former commission accomplished remarkable things. It is very important to see beyond the criticism that the former commission had become politicized. The commission has left behind a significant normative body of work, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and including its covenants on civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights. It also created a control system which includes special procedures and special rapporteurs; it created a specific control mechanism to deal with confidential complaints, namely procedure 1503, which is well known. The entire review of special procedures must take place within one year, which, again, begins with the first session of the new council. This means that the deadline is June 2007 for the review of special procedures.
I will conclude my opening statement by talking about the proposal or document which has been referred to as the ``conceptual working document of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Concerning the Creation of a Unified Body of Treaties.'' First — you know this, but I will repeat it — the Office of the High Commissioner will represent the new council's secretariat. So I would say it is the central nervous system which receives information from all countries and NGOs. I will let Mr. Roy discuss this issue, but I think we might envision institutionalizing the participation of NGOs on the council, and ensure that they are involved in this novel idea of creating a unified body of treaties to collect reliable and objective evidence, as the resolution on the creation of the council calls for.
I think we have fairly interesting tools, and I will conclude by coming back to the proposal of the Office of the High Commissioner, namely a unified body of treaties. As you know, there are currently seven distinct control bodies which, individually, evolve, look at and monitor the application of the conventions to ensure that they are respected. For instance, there is a control body for a covenant on civil and political rights, there is the Human Rights Committee, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the UN Migrant Workers Convention; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the UN Convention against Torture. Each of the seven bodies is tasked with monitoring the application of a convention.
Under the proposal of the Office of the High Commissioner, a body would be created to monitor the application of all seven conventions. I gave your clerk an extensive written document of 27 pages, in which you can find any legal details you may be interested in. I would like to point out that there are huge legal challenges involved in amending the conventions and in creating a unified body of treaties. I do not know how the United Nations will go about it. It will be difficult. They could try to amend each convention, with all the issues that would raise, or adopt a constitutive resolution to create a unified body which would abolish the seven other conventions. I believe that if there is clear political will within the General Assembly, the job will get done, but that remains to be seen. As I told you, this proposal has been submitted to each country for further thought.
Jean-Louis Roy, President, Rights and Democracy: I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting us. This is an old habit which we, at Rights and Democracy, have, namely to be with you, to engage in dialogue with you and we always appreciate it. We believe that the Senate, and Senate committees, including this committee, are important places of reflection, of future planning and of emerging political ideas in Canada. I will try not to repeat the things that Professor Duplessis has just talked about.
[English]
We must take a fresh look at the united system and the question of promotion and protection of human rights in the context of this new Human Rights Council.
[Translation]
As you know, opinion is very divided on the work the council is currently doing. From our point of view — and we have followed the council's work very closely, since we were in Geneva at the time — whatever the case may be, the work accomplished since last June is substantial and very important.
For the vast majority of the 47 member countries of the council, as they stated in the documents which they have submitted until now, the issue of civil and political rights has become — I am thinking of the documents submitted by India and China, amongst others — a stage or element in a larger context which includes social and economic rights. I feel that at some point it would be interesting for our institutions, including the Senate, to conduct a more in-depth analysis of what should be done in the coming years with regard to social and economic rights.
I also wanted to stress, as Professor Duplessis has just explained, that we can expect a great deal from the rights council. That being said, it should not be the sole focus of our efforts. We are witnessing a period of significant national human rights development around the world. In Morocco, Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other countries around the world, we are both witness to and partners in initiatives to found national human rights commissions. We are aware of these developments because we are one of the partners in the creation of national institutions for the protection of human rights.
Over the next few days, we will be hosting a delegation from the Political Science University of Beijing's Centre for Human Rights. The centre has been given a mandate to draft proposals for a human rights commission in China. We believe that this constitutes significant progress. We were also partners in the development of a Commonwealth Association of National Human Rights Institutions.
It is safe to say that a great deal is happening at the national level. At the regional level, we are still working with our Asian partners with a view to establishing either a pan-Asian human rights commission or individual commissions in the various Asian regions.
I would like to draw to your attention the fact that, for the first time in its history, the African Commission has harshly and unequivocally condemned Zimbabwe. Three weeks ago, during the special session of the UN Human Rights Council on Darfour, the African group distanced itself from Sudan and the Arab-speaking group by urging the United Nations to take real action in Sudan. This serves to underscore the essential role that the United Nations play.
The Rights Council is an amazing achievement. It has been said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the United Nations' greatest achievement: the new council embodies that remarkable text that has placed human rights front and centre on the agenda of many countries.
When speaking about the Rights Council, it is important not to overlook other bodies, and Canadian policy must take into consideration needs at the national and regional level, as well as at the United Nations level. Canada enjoys an extremely privileged position and our policy must reflect this. It is incumbent upon Canada to work with the Francophonie, the Commonwealth, and the OAS in order to build alliances to counter the regional groups that have been formed and which, if left unchecked, will expose the Council of Rights to rampant politicization. It is too soon to judge the work that is underway in Geneva at the moment.
[English]
It is a work in progress. It will take years before we have the last formulas. We see a lot of good work going on. We have read all the reports and I think we should not rush to pass a final judgment at this stage. In the following years, the council will pass from procedures to substance.
Let me say a few words about certain mechanisms that are in the process of being defined and the explicit rules at the council.
First, we cannot place enough emphasis on the importance of the universal periodical review. This review was the most permanent and solid criticism against the selectivity of the commission. The selectivity is over. All countries must say something about what is going on in their country.
We prefer option 2. As you know, the working group for the universal periodical review has proposed two methods. I think that the second method is largely superior because it will permit the council to have its normal session and work on other questions rather than only the report about the country.
We should also mention that the periodical review is not a peer review. There is some tendency in some of the recommendations of the working group to build a peer review. A peer review means that states look at states. We want that, but we also want civil society to be part of the process. We want experts to be part of the process. We want national institutions to be part of the process.
Concerning special procedures, we should keep in mind that resolution 60/251 of the UN General Assembly calls for a system of special procedures to be maintained. It is not only the decision of the council. The general assembly has been clear on that. The system must be maintained, and when they referred to the system, they were referring to the special rapporteur theme, as Ms. Duplessis mentioned.
[Translation]
We need special thematic rapporteurs, particularly for the most marginalized and vulnerable, and for those groups around the world whose rights are most at risk.
It goes without saying that study groups, the expert consultative body, and the former sub-commission on the promotion and protection of human rights should be kept. It is beyond any doubt that important human rights challenges are on the horizon. By way of example, I could mention corporate responsibility, the management and preservation of our history, the way in which we approach religion, and the problems faced by aboriginal people. In the past, the sub-commission was responsible for preparing the groundwork so that the commission could then develop standards: it is imperative that it be preserved.
Canada is a member of the council and will be for the next four years. We will therefore be one of the first countries to have our human rights policy examined, as it was decided that the council members would be the first to undergo review.
In a move that was sorely needed, Canada has significantly enhanced the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner. Canada was also one of the countries that pushed for a special session to be held on Darfour. Canada, members of the European Unit and other like-minded countries must step up to the plate. It is a disgrace that sessions only ever addressed Israel and Palestine, but if we are not proactive, sessions will be used to address subjects that would not be of our choosing. A balance has to be struck to accommodate all viewpoints.
Although it has already been said on many occasions, I would like to reiterate that Canada should match its political will to its financial means and introduce a special representative for human rights. I say this in light of the importance of human rights in national, regional and international policy; in light of what is happening in China — China influences an increasing number of countries, particularly with regard to their human rights policy — and in light of what is happening in the Arab world. In a sense, China and the Arab world are the new frontiers of human rights.
[English]
We should have someone on a full-time basis at the centre of a political system that will be an ambassador at large and will ensure that Canada develops the necessary allies.
[Translation]
Given that we have to build the Rights Council, develop a Canadian policy to support regional rights institutions, and reorientate our policies to take into consideration national institutions, the government ought to take a good look at what has been done elsewhere.
Great Britain struck a joint parliamentary committee on human rights. Would it not be a good idea for Canada to follow suit? Could we not have a cabinet committee or subcommittee tasked with monitoring human rights?
In light of what is happening in Geneva, Rights and Democracy took the decision to open a permanent office in Geneva. It has three key objectives.
First, it will monitor council proceedings and ensure that we are more directly involved in implementing the agreement that we have with High Commissioner Arbour to undertake joint projects on rights and democracy in a number of countries over the next three years.
Second, it will serve as a resource centre, accessible by Internet, for Canadian NGOs that do not have the means to attend the three statutory meetings and additional special sessions that are held each year. We will keep the 60 Canadian NGO partners that are working in the human rights field up to date, and we will organize more structured parallel events, which governments will be invited to attend, to coincide with council sessions.
We are in the process of putting the finishing touches to a network of Canadian human rights NGOs. There used to be such a network, but it collapsed. Rights and Democracy will begin operating the network secretariat in the course of the next few weeks or months. We will do so in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Canadian bodies that are interested in human rights. You can find more information on the network in the written brief that we have provided in both official languages.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to put a question to both witnesses. Ms. Duplessis, it was helpful that you talked about the varying treaties and their methods, and how one would combine them. To this point, we have heard about the difficulty of combining them, more from the point of view of the expertise of each one.
In my writings, I had not contemplated the elements of the convention itself and how one would bring those together in a housekeeping way — how does one manage all those elements? How does one give consistency and weight to them? I thank you for that.
The overwhelming fear is that we will not have the same capability to put forward our point of view on human rights, as a Canadian public and as a Canadian government. Previously, we said the Human Rights Commission was politicized, and it was so politicized that it was time to change it. However, over the years we developed, and Canadians led, many initiatives to overcome the politics that inevitably follow when nations come together with different points of view.
We hear the same thing is happening now in this new council — that the politics immediately moved in. What we seem to be doing is trying to defend all the gains we made under the commission. Other than this element of universal periodic review, there does not seem to be anything new or innovative to address the politics. Am I correct, from both your points of view?
[Translation]
Ms. Duplessis: I understand that your reaction is tempered, because it does seem that innovation is essentially limited to the universal periodic review. Nevertheless, measures have been taken to allay concerns about politicization, particularly with regard to the makeup of the council, even though some countries initially wanted a polished halo to be a membership requirement, in spite of the fact that few countries are true champions of human rights.
We addressed these concerns by providing for the suspension of any state that egregiously violates human rights by means of a vote sanctioned by a qualified majority of 75 per cent. We are using what we inherited from the commission as a basis on which to build and develop new approaches. With regard to the regional blocs, which, in my opinion, are the root cause of the politicization of the council, Canada has worked extensively with NGOs and small countries like Switzerland — a country that has done a great deal for the human rights council — that are less involved in these tensions.
At the moment, there is a simple system of geographic alignment. The group of African countries and the group of Asian countries have an automatic majority and they form a united front on a number of issues against European and Latin American regional groupings. Canada does not have to support the European bloc at all costs, but, as a middle power, it should develop relationships with NGOs and small countries.
Your committee has already referred to the fact that Canada is a middle power: I think that, in international affairs, a middle power should make use of legal instruments and strive to do the best it can. Legal instruments allow debates to be approached in a dispassionate manner. Canada ought to stand as an ardent supporter of the resolution and its principles. We all have the capacity to use the guiding principles to avoid what would be an extremely damaging confrontation between the different blocs.
[English]
Mr. Roy: You are asking a provocative question, and you know the situation better than all of us. There are a lot of new elements in what is happening in Geneva. First, you mentioned the universal periodical review, which is something of great significance. We will see the result of this review in 18 or 24 months, when we will have, in a bloc, the state of human rights coming out of the council.
Second is the way countries are selected to be part of the human rights council. They must prove that they are serious in their own policies to be a member of this committee. How we will work with that notion is of great interest also.
As you know, members of the council may call special sessions. That element is new also. They have done that in the last 10 months. That is significant.
Finally, this council must give a global report to the UN General Assembly on a yearly basis. That is new also. The question of human rights will go from the council to the UN General Assembly on a yearly basis. This business is completely new.
It will be extraordinarily interesting to look at how this council performs during the next two or three years. It will always be politicized. We should not dream about that. China is China and the United States is the United States — that is the world in which we live. The government will not go through that door and decide they will not play politics as a human rights council.
They will play politics. There is some mechanism, such as the universal periodical review, that will not permit playing politics.
I wanted to mention the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It will be completely changed after two or three years as a secretariat, and they are working on that now. Half their activities will be new. This point relates to what you mentioned about the treaty. It is too early to decide that we will bring in all the treaty in one single piece of judicial literature.
For example, the high commissioner will be part of an 85-country review and will take information from all those treaties. Something will grow from that. I do not know what, but something new will grow from that. I do not know if it will be done at the expense of other functions of the high commissioner, but something of valid importance will develop here.
Senator Poy: This question is specifically for Mr. Roy. You talked about the Asian commission and the African commission, and these commissions are blocs that work together. Were they set up that way so they have different rules? One would think the same rules apply to everybody. Are these only political blocs? I need some clarification.
Mr. Roy: As you know, on the European continent and in this hemisphere, in the Americas and in Africa, we have the human rights original commission. They are different. In this hemisphere, they are the creation of the country. They have no direct institutional links or judicial links with the UN Human Rights Council.
That original commission is a different business. For example, the African countries may decide to appoint a special rapporteur. If they decide to do so, they receive a national report about what is happening in their member countries. It is another level, not connected, except that if you are Burkina Faso or Bolivia and you have prepared a report for your original commission, you will use the content largely to go to Geneva.
Senator Poy: The council does not have members in these blocs?
Mr. Roy: No.
Senator Poy: It is totally different.
Mr. Roy: It is different and independent.
Senator Poy: As far as indigenous peoples go, do they have their own bloc or commission that cuts across political lines or borders?
Mr. Roy: The Aboriginal people have made tremendous gains in the United Nations system. They were not at the United Nations 25 to 30 years ago. Now they have a caucus that is significant and plays an important role in the preparation of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, Canada voted with Russia, and Russia voted with Canada on that. That is number one.
They also have the permanent forum in New York. A strong lady from the Philippines chairs that permanent forum. They do not have a commission, an institution, but now they are part of the system. We cannot work on the field of human rights and the rights of the indigenous people without working with this coalition in Geneva, or this permanent forum in New York.
Senator Poy: This bloc goes across political borders: the Aboriginal people in Australia work with those in Canada?
Mr. Roy: Yes: That network is global.
Senator Poy: Are they heard on the council?
Mr. Roy: The commission decided 10 years ago to create this working group that has worked for 10 or 11 years now to produce a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
I will give you this answer: 10 years ago they were sufficiently visible and active to be heard by the council who decided that they would try to find a consensus on the rights of Aboriginal people and put this consensus in a universal declaration.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Ms. Duplessis, you suggested that, as a middle power, Canada's position should not be entirely governed by the regional groupings, that is, the European group in our case.
I could not agree more. Could we not choose an entirely different philosophy to define our role on the international stage with regard to human rights; could we not lead the way in the quest to break down the barriers that exist between the various blocs; could we not serve as a bridge for the big guns such as the United States? Could we not build capacity on this front? Would the Department of Foreign Affairs support such an endeavour? Has this idea already been considered?
Ms. Duplessis: I fully agree with you. Canada should take on exactly such a role — it is the only way to progress beyond the current polarization that does not work. After the Cold War, we thought that such polarization was a thing of the past, but I think that we are heading down that road again.
As for the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am unable to give you an answer. I have no idea whether the Canadian executive supports such an approach. I tabled a brief providing you with information that might be of interest. A number of think pieces have been tabled by both individual countries and by NGOs, who have been strongly encouraged by Luis Alfonso De Alba, the president of the new council and representative of the Mexican ambassador. Mexico is another middle power and Mr. De Alba has strongly encouraged — and continues to encourage — countries such as Canada, Switzerland and Luxemburg to use a cross-cutting approach to reach out to countries open to the idea of human rights advancement and to build alliances on specific subjects. This is the approach favoured within the new council.
Senator Dallaire: Our recent visit gave us the impression that we were simply pawns of the American.
Ms. Duplessis: I do not agree.
Senator Dallaire: That is the impression that I got and I would like to see proof to the contrary. Are you aware of any specific research that is being undertaken as to how a middle power such as Canada could develop new ways of working with the regional blocs? Is there any actual work being done?
Ms. Duplessis: I could not comment on what is happening at the departmental level in Canada; however, I can forward you a hyperlink regarding Canada's working document at the international level.
Senator Dallaire: But no concrete work has been undertaken on this front.
Ms. Duplessis: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Dallaire: My next question is for Mr. Roy.
You spoke of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the development and implementation of various protocols in Canada and, in doing so, made several suggestions as to how human rights could be advanced. Amongst other ideas, you suggested an ambassador. What do you think about having a minister for human rights? At the moment, human rights issues are the responsibility of the justice minister, who seems to treat this aspect of his portfolio as being of secondary importance, choosing to delegate responsibility to public servants.
Mr. Roy: You and I have already spoken about this matter. I know your question and you know my answer, but I would be happy to reiterate it for the committee.
With your indulgence, I would also like to add to Professor Duplessis' answer concerning Canada's capacity to build relationships with countries other than the obvious choices, such as the European group.
[English]
We have done that in the land mine campaigns. We have done that for the International Criminal Court. We have done that recently in many significant domains.
[Translation]
With regard to your question, should we have a department of human rights?
[English]
The first reaction will be, why not, and then there would be more thinking about the significance of that. If it was to mean that other departments, such as security, defence, justice and external affairs, would say that human rights are the business of this secretariat and not their business anymore, I would be against that.
We are in a time when questions about human rights need to be spread all over the place. I would ask in this presentation that the Prime Minister appoint someone close to the Prime Minister's Office. Let us look at the security files. How many jobs have we created? There have been more senior jobs with huge budgets, but not a single one in terms of human rights.
[Translation]
I would prefer to see a cabinet committee on human rights, chaired by the Prime Minister, for example. If, like I do, you take human rights seriously and believe that it will be the issue that dominates the world's agenda for the next 25 years, you have to turn to other bodies. In my previous incarnations, I have had the opportunity to work with federal ministers and I found that, although they had the will and the job title, they did not have the budgets and could not therefore deliver the goods. People questioned why human rights fell under the purview of Foreign Affairs or Justice when there was a Secretary of State for the Francophonie with a $1.2-million budget. Obviously, we have at times thought: why not have a department of human rights? At first blush, the idea is appealing, but when we thought about it a little more, we wondered if we would not be confining human rights to one specific place. That was when I started to have very serious doubts.
Senator Fraser: I have two questions, one for each witness.
I would like to begin with you, Ms. Duplessis. My question concerns the unification of the various authorities, so as to create a single authority to monitor all of the conventions. You have explained the huge legal difficulties that such a solution presents, but do you think that it would be a good idea for Canada to support the proposal? I cannot deny that I have my concerns — if we were to have a single authority, I think that some conventions would be neglected, starting with the convention on the rights of women. What do you think?
Ms. Duplessis: I have given a great deal of thought to this question. I think that it would all depend on the structure of the unified authority. You are right to say that one of the risks would be to undermine certain specific rights or neglect certain vulnerable groups protected by the conventions; however, the High Commissioner's proposal draws attention to the risk so that it might be avoided. I take comfort in the knowledge that they are clearly cognizant of this risk, which can be avoided if the political will is there to do so.
I am more concerned about the structure. There has been talk of creating several divisions. The idea was for each division to take on the work of one of the existing bodies, so there would be seven divisions in all, but we decided that such a proposal was not workable as it offers only the appearance of integration. Furthermore, each division would be simply taking on the work of the existing body when in fact we want to go further. Our subsequent discussions led us to conclude that we could set up divisions, but that each division would have responsibility for the seven conventions. It is important to share expertise and it was therefore suggested that one division would receive all complaints, all individual petitions concerning states that have ratified the protocols of the various conventions. I believe this to be a good idea from a legal perspective. One division would have the responsibility of receiving complaints. I believe that to be something which is fundamental. The problem with a unified authority is that it can result in the fragmentation of international law. With the proliferation of international control mechanisms and quasi-judicial mechanisms, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure foreseeability in the application of the law, a situation that is extremely damaging for a legal system. In fact, it signs its death warrant; governments must understand the precise nature of their international obligations. That is why I believe it would be very beneficial to have a unified division at the international jurisprudence level, although we do not have to call it that.
I share your concern completely about how the scope of a number of conventions and the range of activities of some groups are being reduced.
Senator Fraser: I will give you an example. I was in Strasburg recently, where I was truly shocked by what I learned. I was attending a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, among other things, we considered the draft convention on the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Just imagine that, in order to reach a consensus among European countries, a number of derogatory clauses, which I find to be scandalous, had to be included in the convention, thus giving countries the right to not accept provisions on, for example, child pornography. It was simply astounding! That, in Europe, is the price to pay to arrive at a compromise. If that is the case in Europe, just imagine what things are like elsewhere! You now understand why I am worried.
Mr. Roy, a number of people have told us that the code of conduct issue is a source of concern. Could you give us some clarification on that? Why is it a source of concern? What are the dangers and what is happening? What do you know about the current developments on that issue?
Mr. Roy: In the course of the discussions on the special procedures regarding rapporteurs, a number of countries moved that special rapporteurs be chosen by the council. They also moved that there be a code of conduct governing their work.
In some ways, that is a useful proposal. Once you have a dozen experts acting as special rapporteurs, these people need to follow standards that are politically appropriate.
Let us consider a specific case. A few years back, when Mr. Ramcharam was the acting high commissioner, one of the special rapporteurs went to China and gave a press conference during which he condemned the Chinese government for its practices in such areas as food, nutrition and agriculture, and this even before his report had been received and assessed.
Can that individual who was chosen, who is qualified and who clearly has things to say, condemn the human rights policies of that country on behalf of the international community, after spending only one week in that country? The person represents the council. He is appointed by the High Commissioner. Rules have to be observed. But those rules should not prevent special rapporteurs from coming into contact with a country's civil society. The rules should not prevent them from speaking with opposition parties, having access to documents and to the people who produced them, as well as to senior government officials, et cetera. Special rapporteurs must have total access. Now, the issue of discretion is a real problem, requiring good judgment.
Senator Fraser, regarding your question and the one asked by Senator Dallaire, I have to say a few words about Canada. I believe that Canada has recently taken some important positions; I touched upon them earlier. Yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay announced the resumption of dialogue with China. I applaud that initiative. I have just returned from a three-week tour of Chinese universities, and I believe that what Mr. McKay announced this morning is extremely significant and important.
There are, however, areas that are opening up in Canada. Earlier in my presentation I said that we cannot avoid addressing the issue of social and economic rights in the coming years. We will have to find a way to develop a framework for recognizing rights. There are many examples of things happening around the world. You spoke about Europe. The French have just recognized the right to shelter and housing in an act of their Parliament. A number of initiatives are being taken and would be worth compiling, something in which Canada could take a leadership role, in terms of knowledge, and thus provide a great service and break down the predictable barriers to change.
The second area Canada could become involved in is the issue of rights in China. The public debate in China is incredibly lively, and we as a country cannot simply stand back and watch; as other countries are doing, we have to help Chinese civil society, and we can do so in a much more significant way than we can in Egypt, for example. There are very significant, long-term issues that can be dealt with through trade negotiations at the WTO, like social economic rights and social and health issues — we did so at Doha, but dealt with other issues. If Canada took position on those three areas, we could recapture our place on the current global stage.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: You talked about providing a secretariat for the non-governmental organizations and pulling them together. How do you see their impact on the council and how can it be sharpened and made more effective? How do you see NGOs once they come back here pushing the provincial agendas to implement the human rights? As a tag- on, how do you see the $100,000 that Mr. Harper has announced for the human rights museum and the ongoing funding of $20 million a year? What agenda would you give that museum to push your agendas?
Mr. Roy: The Winnipeg museum was first announced by a previous government.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It was, but ongoing funding was not.
Mr. Roy: You are right, there was no ongoing funding.
Since we have no time, the best practices of NGO participation are included in the first section of the binder we gave you. We are speaking too quickly here but since last June and the creation of the council, everything concerning the participation of NGOs has been acceptable. It has to be strengthened and institutionalized, but NGOs were able to participate in the work of the council in various ways in the last ten months.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What do they do when they come back here to make the provincial governments use their federal funding to make rights happen, such as housing rights?
Mr. Roy: What do Canadian NGOs do? You know the answer better than I. Some NGOs are fighting for the rights of women and Aboriginal rights, and trying to convince committees like yours. That is their activity. There were 25,000 people on the street in Montreal yesterday — another subject — and that is civil society living.
Senator Munson: There is a big binder, then a two pager that I like from The Globe and Mail that you wrote about a month ago. We are back to the integrity of the United Nations Human Rights Council. You had four suggestions. First, the effective Universal Periodical Review mechanism must be established. Second, a comprehensive system of special rapporteurs must be maintained to investigate things such as violence against women and the rights of indigenous people. Third, a strong expert advisory body must be developed. Fourth, you proposed that a complaint mechanism must be created allowing individuals to seek redress for human rights violations.
You say these recommendations should be implemented within three months. Now it would be two months. These are strong recommendations. You talk about the integrity of this new council. If they do not address the situation, what will happen to the integrity of this council which, it seems to me, is diminished week by week, every time we listen to other witnesses or hear the stories of Darfur and other countries?
Mr. Roy: Senator Munson, that three-month reference to the schedule has been the work of the council since its creation in June of last year. They still have two months to finish their job. They are supposed to have the rules and procedures by next June.
If the UN Human Rights Council failed, if the Universal Periodical Review is a farce of some sort, a two-page business with no content, it will be a blow for the human rights doctrine and politics that have been developed in the world in the last 60 years. We talk about universality of rights. That is the place where universality has to be in action, visible, producing results and delivering. If it were to collapse because of a takeover by a group of states — I do not think this scenario will happen, but we do not know — it will be a terrible blow. What has been established in the last 60 years may be in great jeopardy.
Senator Munson: June is close, and the way the United Nations works is that things move painfully slowly, from my experience serving it as a reporter and as a senator.
Mr. Roy: As I mentioned earlier, I do not think that everything will be settled by June. That is a work in progress. We will have a definitive answer to all questions by June.
As Ms. Duplessis mentioned concerning the special procedure and the universal periodic review, we should know at least the core elements. We have reason to believe that the council will work reasonably well. Most things are not new. Almost everything that is on the table comes from the former commission.
That is the rule in negotiation: The last 10 days or the last two weeks will become extraordinarily important. I am sure there will be some night sessions around the negotiations. Let us hope and let us push our government also.
Senator Munson: All we can have is hope, I guess.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Roy and Ms. Duplessis. You have completed our witness list, as we are now imminently ready to write the report. We are mindful of the June time frame; and we wanted to provide our advice to the government as quickly as possible, and to relay the messages that we have heard from many of the witnesses.
You have given us information that we did not have before, and that is extremely helpful in fleshing out our report. You have also outlined the challenges succinctly — both politically and within the framework and deliberations of the council.
I, for one, do not give up on it. I was looking for some innovative suggestions and opinions, and you have helped us frame some of those. Hopefully, we will be part of the process that will bear fruit in having a reinvigorated council, and not the opposite, which may be a possibility we do not want to think about.
Thank you for your indulgence in staying longer, and for your written materials. They will be extremely helpful in our report.
Senators, we are running late and I am mindful that there is a caucus. There will be a budget handed out, while we will deal with after the next panel, and leave future business to the steering committee. I have a proposal, which I will make at that time, as to how we will deal with all the issues.
We are continuing with our order of reference with respect to the Public Service Commission of Canada, examining cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service, and studying the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity for minority groups are being met.
For the purposes of the record, in February 2007, this committee filed a report entitled, Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service — Not There Yet.
We have asked Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, to come back with her officials to respond to our recommendations and report, and to give any further points of view. As we noted in the report, we are anxious to hear not only of the recommendations, but we were surprised that there had been some musings about changing the targets or investigating the appropriateness of the target, as we had not heard that indicated previously. We found that there was no reason to change the targets: as we had looked historically, the targets were achievable. They may have been difficult, but with persistence and with the right policies, practices and political will, they should be achievable.
I wanted to note that point, and I am sure you will address it.
Ms. Barrados, you will be speaking. I presume your officials, Linda Gobeil and Paula Green, are here to assist you in questions. Is that correct?
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: That is right.
The Chairman: You can make some preliminary remarks and we will then go to questions.
[Translation]
Ms. Barrados: Madam Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee to discuss the findings and recommendations made in your preliminary report: Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service — Not There Yet.
Today, I have with me, from the Public Service Commission of Canada, Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Paul Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity.
Under the Employment Equity Act, the PSC has the responsibility to identify and remove barriers in recruitment and staffing and to develop policies and practices that promote a representative public service.
As we testified before, the composition of the public service continues to reflect workforce availability. In three of the four employment equity groups, there continues to be a gap between representation of visible minorities in the public service and their workforce availability.
We are providing you today with a table that indicates the representation of the four designated groups in the federal public service. While we continue to believe that the gap can be closed, we are concerned with how long it will take us to get there.
At the executive level, we continue to see under-representation of women and visible minorities. Under the new Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Commission has fully delegated staffing authorities as encouraged by the act.
Provisions of the act also allow for targeted employment.
[English]
The Public Service Commission can undertake activities which will increase the number of applications from employment equity members. The responsibility to assess and appoint members of employment equity groups, once they have applied, is with the delegated hiring department or agency.
Under the new Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Commission developed and published a policy on employment equity in the employment process to help departments integrate employment equity into their human resources and business plans. We read with interest your recent report containing recommendations to improve representativeness activities in the public service. We have provided a document that details our comments on your recommendations. I will touch on some of our comments now.
Your first recommendation deals with strengthening leadership in meeting employment equity goals by tying the bonuses of deputy ministers to performance assessments. The PSC does not have direct responsibility in this area. However, we will continue to provide the Clerk of the Privy Council with staffing-related information, including reports on employment equity for the clerk's consideration in assessing the performance of deputy ministers.
We strongly support your second recommendation. The commission encourages departments and agencies to create integrated human resources and business plans. We encourage deputy heads to be strategic in hiring and to make employment equity part of their human resources planning. This planning is needed if they are to derive maximum benefits from the potential offered by the Public Service Employment Act to target appointments to meet operational requirements and organizational needs that are important to an organization, including employment equity.
In terms of your third recommendation, we are also strongly supportive. The commission continues to broaden access to public service jobs. The policy on national area of selection was recently expanded to include all officer-level jobs. This expansion will improve access for all Canadians, including members of employment equity groups. Visible minorities, of whom there are large concentrations in the Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal regions, will have access to more jobs. We know that visible minorities are interested in public service jobs.
Visible minorities make up about a quarter of all applications received but are appointed only at a rate 10 per cent. This 15 per cent gap was the subject of our recent drop-off study which I provided you today. Drop-off refers to the difference between the share of applications and the share of appointments. The study found that the appointment rates for all four employment equity groups exceeded their workforce availability. There was no overall drop-off for Aboriginal people, women, and persons with disability. However, the drop-off for visible minorities was significant, and spread across occupational groups, regions, and departments.
We are conducting further research and analysis to determine if the drop-off also persists under the current Public Service Employment Act, and if so, where in the process it occurs and what are the causes and factors?
In 2000, a one-in-five benchmark was set to address the under-representation of visible minorities. It established an environment of low turnover in the public service. With different demographics, we are examining what appointments rates would be needed to achieve a fully representative public service, and in what time frame.
Your report mentions our initiatives to improve representation of visible minorities at the executive level. We successfully established a pool of 41 pre-qualified candidates at the EX-1 level. To date, departments have made 23 appointments from this pool. Three candidates are under consideration. We are encouraging greater use of the pool. We also know that some departments are appointing visible minorities through their own processes, but the effort must continue.
Aboriginal employment issues also continue to be of importance to the Public Service Commission. We know special measures are required to recruit and retain employees. We are developing a national Aboriginal Centre of Excellence in Winnipeg. An assessment will be conducted to review culturally appropriate outreach and assessment tools. We will explore the use of pools and inventories, make recommendations on Aboriginal retention issues and develop a national Aboriginal employment strategy.
Many of our current and planned activities support the overall direction in your preliminary report. I agree we are not there yet. We are conducting analyses to identify any systemic barriers. We are committed to removing them. We are working with departments and the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada to focus attention on the issues and undertake special initiatives such as our visible minority pool of qualified candidates. We know we need to increase the number of appointments of visible minorities and, to ensure that, we have an environment that provides for their growth and development into future leaders.
We would be pleased to answer questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Barrados. I will ask two questions and then I will turn to the senators.
First, are you still maintaining the targets that you indicated to us and that you have no reason to change, as we had some indication you might?
Second, as a result of our report and its dissemination, you can appreciate that we received comments and indications of support. One that I received personally was something we had not touched on in our report. One dilemma is that visible minorities in some cases, are not that visible but are still in the visible minority category. This person said that visible minority includes self-identification. Therefore, part of what the person was saying to me was, in our report and in the way that the Public Service Commission is, if someone is identified, then they have some opportunity, but most people come into a service to try to integrate. To become part of a process to self-identify puts them aside.
There is this tension between having these skills plus being a member of a visible minority, or simply having skills.
The conundrum was pointed out for the person applying or asking to be promoted, which is something we had not heard in our testimony, or given any thought to.
How does self-identification factor into how you work with people?
Ms. Barrados: First, on the targets: They were not set by the Public Service Commission but by government. In the government targets, I inquired how they arrived at the target of one in five. We are not meeting it. The one in five is aggressive, because the idea behind it is to catch up. You do not have one in five all the time, but it is to catch up the representativeness.
Government has been silent on its target. They are no longer talking about a target. It would be appropriate to ask the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada what their target is. That has given me a little bit of pause on targets.
What is the appropriate level that we should bring people in to catch up? It is a short-term catch-up target. It should not be a long-term target. At the rate we are going, how long would it take? I would like a year. There is now an enormous opportunity because we are seeing a doubling of turnover in the public service that we have seen before but we are not used to this kind of turnover. We are bringing in many new people and it is an opportunity. My agenda, frankly, is that if government comes up with a target, I am in the process of signing a contract with Statistics Canada to create a series of projections based on the workforce as we know it and the anticipated workforce out of the new census. We will then have a sense of what kind of numbers we will have. I have every intention of using the powers of the Public Service Commission to start pushing that, but I made the comment that I am not sure of the goal in that context. No one has explained or provided a good rationale and projection for the right number. With the current turnover it may be lower, or because of other barriers in the system, it may be too low. That is the context of my comment.
At the time I appeared before the committee, government still held its target of one in five. It was not as much of an issue and it has disappeared.
Your second issue is a true dilemma, because I understand that the whole issue of self-identification is difficult for some people. They do not want to self-identify. They feel there is stigma associated with that.
On the other hand, we know that we have a public service that is not sufficiently representative. How do we obtain this representativeness? We must have some kind of number. I would like to have some kind of target. The whole thing turns around, Do you have a reasonable number of what is actually there? What are you working towards? Do you know whether you have gotten there?
I have landed on the fact that it is not perfect. We probably have under-reporting. If people feel that they can make their careers in the public service without taking advantage of employment equity programs and initiatives, good for them.
However, many do not feel that. For those who do not feel that, I think we need those goals until we move closer to them. Whatever the number is, we need to be closer than we are now.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to ask a question, which was probably entirely speculation in your answer.
I read the testimony that was given to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and the questions to the managers or the ADMs that were asked was on gender-based analysis, GBA.
I read the testimony from the Department of Justice where the presenter said they now employ more than 50 per cent women and therefore, they do not really need to do GBA.
I was appalled and astounded. My question is around impact of employment. Is there any measurement within the Public Service Commission of Canada as to changes to these targets? Is there a presumption on the part of some departments that policy might change?
Ms. Barrados: I have had some of those discussions. In fact, discussion soon moves to whether, as an organization, we are not discriminating against white men.
The situation is, and that is why I included the numbers in the attachment, that we are in a position where about 52 per cent of the population of the public service are women. The issue is where they are. If there is a large clerical component to the public service, we are more likely to find women there. We still have large clerical administrative components.
If we look at the executive group, the number there is not good. We have 38 per cent of women. This number is a lot better than when I started out. We have made enormous progress, but we are not at 50 per cent. We are not over- represented.
There are also some pockets in the public service, particularly in the scientific and technical areas, where they have a great deal of difficulty achieving anywhere close to representativeness. I understand the challenges because there are problems recruiting the kinds of women interested in that type of employment, as well as challenges recruiting them into the universities. The feeder group is not strong for some of those areas.
Your next question was with respect to the impact of some of these comments. I have a bit of a background in statistics, so I fuss a lot about the numbers and whether the numbers are right. I am trying to get a better handle of what these numbers are and what the barriers are, and then use more of the powers to push the agenda.
If we have a large overall representation and it is fine, that is good, but we do not have it representation in the leadership within some of the sectors.
Senator Nancy Ruth: However, are you not surprised that someone from Justice Canada would make the comment that gender-based analysis is perhaps not important anymore because over 50 per cent of the employees in the department are women? For me, the two have nothing necessarily to do with each other.
Ms. Barrados: I think it has something to do with the context the individual is dealing with. The numbers may have been appropriate for what the person was dealing with. From my point of view, in the public service overall, it is not a done piece of business.
Senator Poy: Ms. Barrados, I want to ask you something about target.
Right now, with respect to equity hiring, the only group that is not reaching the target is the visible minority. However, the percentage of hires goes across the whole spectrum. You referred to the executive level or the pool underneath. I believe it is 8 per cent right now. Does that include everybody?
Ms. Barrados: It includes all visible minorities, yes.
Senator Poy: Is it across every level of the public service?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Poy: Do you have numbers for the executive level?
Ms. Barrados: On the handout that we gave you, we provided two tables. One is for the total public service, which has a figure of 8.1 per cent. The second one is for the executive category, which shows visible minorities at 5.1 per cent.
Senator Poy: Thank you, I have not looked at that. It was only recently given out.
As for the target, as the result of immigration and more and more visible minorities coming in, as well as children being born here, the target will need to move up, theoretically. Am I right?
Ms. Barrados: We want to end up with work force availability. That is for the overall public service, but then we break it down.
You are right. When the composition of the Canadian population changes, the work force availability number should also change. The target we discussed previously, the one in five, was the catch-up target. We will always continue with work force availability to see where we are. I worry about the one in five target.
Senator Poy: In catching up.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, how fast we want to catch up. The environment has changed, so that context is different.
Senator Poy: You mentioned that large numbers of people are retiring.
Ms. Barrados: That is right.
Senator Poy: Therefore, this is the time to catch up, right? This is the opportunity?
Ms. Barrados: That is right. It is a tremendous opportunity, but I am also nervous that we have not done sufficient work. The questions in this committee and in your report is prompting me to question this target. Where exactly is the barrier? Where exactly do visible minorities not get the job? They are certainly interested, and they make it through the first electronic screens because we had all kinds of hypotheses of perhaps visible minorities not understanding but they make it through those screens. Where in this process is this happening? That is where we are at now.
Senator Poy: You mentioned, if I am correct, that heads of department are not given special bonuses if they reach a target? Bonuses are not linked to hiring? Am I correct?
Ms. Barrados: The deputy ministers and heads of organizations are Governor-in-Council appointments. They do not fall under the Public Service Employment Act, except for political activity. There is some reach there as a result. It is really the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Hence my response to your first recommendation was that we are responsible for this area, but we provide the input to the clerk so the clerk sees we are assessing how people are doing on the staffing regime, including attaining the visible minority targets.
Senator Poy: You cannot really enforce anything.
Ms. Barrados: No, we cannot enforce there. The power for enforcement for the Public Service Commission is under the other parts of the public service. It is under the deputy ministers.
Senator Poy: I have a short supplementary question regarding self-identification. Would that include people who have changed their last names? The easiest way of identification is a last name. Right away, they are picked out as not being francophone or anglophone. Self-identification is not part of that?
Ms. Barrados: No, we do not try to determine whether a name sounds foreign, or belongs to some kind of group. I am sure you know people whose names are no indication of their background.
Senator Poy: They change it. That is right.
Ms. Barrados: We go through a process where we ask people to declare themselves. It is particularly important, if a program is targeted to members of visible minority groups, for them to declare that they are a member of the group, so there is that entry point. There is also the number of where they are in the public service and there probably is some under-reporting. There probably are people who do not want to be identified.
The Chairman: Does any of your recruitment indicate that your information is used for that purpose only? With some immigrant groups, there is a lingering fear of what government does with information, even in a positive setting. They think that it may be positive here but if it goes into the pool, it will be used all over the place.
Do you worry about that problem? Have you overcome it in advertising or education?
Ms. Barrados: I have not encountered anything there. We of course work with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to make sure that all our systems are fully compliant. I would ask Ms. Green if she has heard anything or had any experience on that.
Paula Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity, Public Service Commission of Canada: No, not really. We make it clear in any kind of advertisement that it is voluntary to self-declare. However, if we limit the process to only one or more equity groups, such as Aboriginal peoples or visible minorities, then they have no choice. Otherwise, they are not eligible to apply for that position.
Senator Fraser: As I expect you know, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination uttered a report recently in which it said we should stop using the phrase ``visible minorities,'' which we have been using here all evening. My initial reaction was hostile because my experience was, that phrase is used almost entirely in the context of positive steps, positive action, affirmative action, positive measures to assist members of those minorities who need that assistance. However, they told us in an informal meeting that they had heard from some Canadians that they found that term derogatory, or discriminatory — I do not know.
Have you had any feedback on the use of that term, and which side of the debate you would come down on?
Ms. Barrados: I am fairly catholic on the use of labels and terminology, and whatever people feel is appropriate is fine with me. Currently, as you probably know, it is in the employment equity legislation. It is written in definition and in terms of purpose. I have not run into anyone who has taken me aside and said that the use of this terminology is a problem for them. It is not to say that it is not there, but we have not encountered that.
In anticipation of your question, we asked around the commission and there was not anyone who had run into difficulties with it. I hope when there is the review of the employment equity legislation, which I believe is in process, that this point would be discussed. It is not my desire, or that of my organization, to use any terminology that would give offence. However, the intention is to use terminology that provides for positive discrimination. It is discriminatory in that sense.
The Chairman: Thank you for bringing the point up because there was much debate amongst the senators when it was raised, and I think one to reflect on.
Senator Dallaire: In some ministries, the annual performance evaluations are used extensively and in other ministries, they are not, for job competitions. Sometimes they are totally ignored and other times they are used. Have there been any trends in regard to both gender and visible minorities of actual performance evaluations that might be lower, or some sort of a different angle that seems to be coming out of them, in regard to meeting these quotas and attempting to perhaps move the yardsticks a little too fast in certain circumstances?
Ms. Barrados: The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency is responsible for the management of that performance evaluation regime, but I will offer some observations, and I will ask Ms. Gobeil if she has some observations.
Your committee referenced particularly the deputies. Currently under this government, there is now a performance contract with the clerk, the Prime Minister and the deputy.
Senator Dallaire: I know all that stuff. I want the lower levels.
Ms. Barrados: That performance contract is an important thing because it focuses the mind, and the reason it focuses the mind is because it cascades down into the executive ranks.
In government, I have seen that the performance evaluations are done for the executive ranks because they are tied to performance pay or pay at risk. In the EX-1 to EX-5 levels, there are performance evaluations. They are lined up with the objectives set with the managers. I am not sure if employment equity is part of that process. Judging by the performance I would doubt it, but it is a good question and it is one to ask the agency.
On the lower levels, I believe performance evaluations are much more discretionary below the executive ranks, because there they are usually done when there is a problem or when someone is looking to move ahead.
Linda Gobeil, Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: In reference to the executive group, I agree with you and I am not convinced. We may see some departments, though, that make it a practice. Again, in the performance evaluation, we will have the discussion, we will look at whether or not we had performance evaluations, and to what extent the numbers of appointments were made with visible minorities and so on.
I am not aware that it is the norm for everyone to have performance evaluations. I have seen some in my past experience but, again, I am not convinced that everyone who is doing that has that practice.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: As a former deputy minister for human resources at the Department of National Defence, I am aware of that.
My question concerns women and visible minorities. Have trends been under or overestimated? Is there a perception that people are not performing or are retained because of a trend arising from assessments that are made?
Ms. Barrados: We ask ourselves why there are not more people, especially from visible minorities, who are promoted or who enter the public service. Your question deals with promotion. That is not an area we have examined, but it is a very good idea.
Senator Dallaire: My experience at the Department of National Defence was that many people were concerned by that, especially for advancement at the executive level.
[English]
How does one come into the executive if those evaluations are not used?
The other one is for the visible minorities, which is the nature of the demographics that are coming down the road. When we conducted a demographic study in the defence committee on recruiting, we saw a situation where unless there was a massive input of visible minorities by about 2012, two things will happen: One, there will not be enough White, anglophone, francophone, Judeo-Christians recruited or available, and two, there could be a backlash from the White, anglophone, francophone, Judeo-Christians asking why their kids are in the military and no one else is playing?
Therefore, I go to the public service in regard to visible minorities. Would decentralizing the public service out of Ottawa be an instrument that might be considered? It is being talked about on the bilingual side. Is that something you are potentially considering?
Ms. Barrados: I am concerned about exactly why they are not getting into the public service. I know they are interested. I know they are applying in great numbers and they are qualified. It is not as if we have people who are far off the requirements. I do not know where it is happening. We have made it obligatory for all officer level jobs. Any outside job that is posted is open to anyone in Canada. It does not matter where they live. We still have the problem of mobility, which is a consideration.
I am worried about what we are trying to do. I think we are trying to make the public service representative. It needs to reflect the population that the public service serves.
I do not want to have an arbitrary number or target because I want to be able to respond to the issue of backlash. When a bright young White man says, ``I do not stand a chance of getting a public service job,'' is that the message I want? No, it is not.
I am concerned about getting those numbers right so we can speak with some confidence and reasonableness. We do not want more than work force availability. We want it reflective of the population.
Senator Dallaire: It took us nearly 30 years to deal with the perception of French Canadians not being promoted because of quotas, linguistic skills and so on. The perception in the institution was that they won their spurs because they deserved them.
Do you have a projection of when that will happen on the gender side for women? Will we need to go through a long process like that with regard to the visible minorities, or is research being done to try to deal with that?
Ms. Barrados: We are doing the research and are actively pursuing that goal. That is why I am being careful in terms of what I pronounce. Once we have done that work, I want to continue to push representativeness. We have done well on the French side. Again, it is not perfect, but we are doing well there.
On the women's side, we have made huge strides compared to the public service that I entered. For persons with disabilities we are representative, but only because our population is becoming older, and people are becoming disabled in the workplace with hearing problems and such things. Our intake may not be what we think.
It is with visible minorities that we have an issue. We do not seem to be making progress of a pace, although we are making some progress. It is better than it was five years ago, but I would like an estimate of how long it will take to achieve anywhere close to what the Canadian population requires.
Senator Dallaire: We have proven that setting numbers does not make the system work or gain acceptability. The fact that we have numbers does not necessarily mean that the institution has changed its philosophy or culture toward this matter.
Do we actually conduct research on how the culture will be more attuned to visible minorities, or will we let that evolve by osmosis, as has been done on the French side, hoping that people will change their attitude?
On the French side, we have achieved bilingualism, but there is a backlash about whether we are hiring French Canadians. We are hiring bilingual people, but are they necessarily French Canadians? That number is now shifting because more bilingual English Canadians are meeting that requirement. We return to number crunching and coming back into the circle.
Ms. Barrados: We can send you some numbers on that.
Senator Dallaire: That is okay. I do not want that.
Ms. Barrados: I do not want to quote you those numbers now, because I might have some of them wrong.
You are absolutely right that having the numbers is one thing, and you are absolutely right that there has to be huge change in the organization. Many of the visible minorities in government will tell you that they do not feel that the environment gives them the opportunity to grow and develop.
Unfortunately, we have split responsibilities for human resource management issues in the public service, and the Public Service Commission is responsible for staffing the appointments. We can be aggressive, and we can move past the numbers because we have all the tools we need to make it stick. We can put conditions on things. We can be directive. We have regulatory powers.
The development side is really the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency and the school. I am never at a loss to make suggestions, but that is not an area where I could push research through my statutory responsibilities.
Senator Dallaire: That is the subtle real dimension of the change. One is the number crunching and the other is the attitude.
As an example, when more women join the forces, there would obviously be more women in leadership roles. However, there was no study on the impact of more women in leadership roles versus the leadership philosophy, which was male-dominated, with structure, bonding and all that good stuff. The introduction of women was not prepared for so we are seeing clashes, versus a proactive transition into a new way of doing business.
That is not in your realm of responsibility?
Ms. Barrados: Not directly, but we do contribute. For example, I am contributing $100,000 a year to the National Council for Visible Minorities in the Public Service to allow them to meet and have these discussions. I meet with them and I speak to them, but I do not have real authority and power to make things happen.
The Chairman: For clarification, you indicated that the applications of visible minorities are coming in. They do not translate to getting the jobs or staying, to put it simply. You said visible minorities apply in great numbers and they are qualified, but they do not get the job or they do not stay.
You used the term ``qualified.'' To me, that means they have a credential that qualifies. Your report on the drop-off rates for employment equity groups talks about citizenship as a preference, with which I do not quarrel. I support that. However, if we look at those people who are yet to be citizens, or are in another category, are we looking at their qualifications differently when it comes to being in the work force? In other words, a degree from somewhere else may have qualified them and it is credential, to a certain extent, but does it have the same weight, influence, et cetera?
We have this debate within our own universities. I remember when we were setting up Centres of Excellence. I remember having to rebut the practice, saying that we have some Centres of Excellence in our smaller universities, not only the larger ones, and that we must stop looking at greater urban centres as producing the best results; that some of our smaller universities have capabilities and credentials of worth.
If you spread that practice around the world, they may have the qualification, but is it seen to have the same value? Is that one of the problems?
Ms. Barrados: That may be one of the issues. I said that people are not getting the jobs. The study we conducted used our electronic application system. A series of questions are tied to the qualifications for that job: the kinds of things they are expected to do and whether they can do them.
Sometimes there is a specific qualification, but not always. That is the first screen, and we find that people with visible minorities meet those qualifications and the credentials we are looking for. We have guidance on how to match a foreign credential with the equivalent here, but we seem to run into difficulties once we go through that first electronic screen, which does not involve people, and we say, ``Over to you in the department.''
That is when the numbers start to drop off, and we do not know why. When we run central programs — management training development, some of the special economist programs and some of the leadership programs — we get the numbers and we manage to keep the numbers.
I do not think the issue is not having enough qualified people, although I know individual cases are sometimes difficult because they feel they have a credential, but something is going on in the system that we want to get a handle on.
The Chairman: That was my point in clarification of what Senator Dallaire was saying. You have the credential, but once you enter a department, particularly, as you pointed out, some of the scientific areas, it may be acknowledged on paper to be a credential, but is it in the eyes of the person who is hiring, and the co-workers?
Ms. Barrados: That is one of our questions that we hope we will be able to answer. I do not find we have a big retention problem in the public service, so recruitment and retention is not the problem, only recruitment.
Senator Munson: Dealing with the drop-off rate and visible minorities, using these figures, do you have a timetable of when we would know more about how this all works: when 25 per cent apply and only 10 per cent seem to get to first base? Would it be this year?
Ms. Barrados: I will ask the person responsible for managing the research to tell you. It is a constant source of discussion, because I want it right away. We have our annual report at the beginning of October, and I want to have the first macro results in the annual report so we can give parliamentarians a feel for what we are seeing, what we know and what we do not know. We probably need to be somewhat iterative, because we have finished the first cut on what is next, we have conducted surveys of applicants, those results are coming, and we are designing focus groups in the department.
Senator Munson: In the second recommendation, you use the terminology, ``We encourage Deputy Heads to be strategic in hiring and to make employment equity part of their human resources planning.'' I look at the word ``encourage'' again. When we talk about generic visible minority executive pool, you are encouraging greater use of the pool. Is that the most you can do, or do you have the power to do more than just ``encourage''? Is encouraging enough to push those in the public service to take action?
Ms. Barrados: I do not think encouraging is enough, but I want to make sure I understand the source of the issue and where the problem is before I do more than encourage.
Senator Munson: I see. So you have a hammer?
Ms. Barrados: I have a hammer. I want to make sure that I use it wisely, because if it is used inappropriately, we will not obtain the result we want.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that. On the Aboriginal Centre of Excellence, I should know more about this, but I do not. Can you walk us through briefly the national Aboriginal Centre of Excellence in Winnipeg? It sounds fascinating and extremely important.
Ms. Barrados: With the new Public Service Employment Act, we now have a regime where the Public Service Commission maintains the authority, hence we still have the hammer, but we are encouraged to delegate to departments. I think that model is the appropriate one. I do not have any problem with that model. That means that the Public Service Commission provides policy directions and we do regulation, but because we came out of a world where we were running the system, I still have a lot of people who do process work. Because there is such limited capacity in the departments, we maintain that. It is discretionary. They do not need to come to the Public Service Commission if they do not want to for any of their support. We are trying to put forward a system of support in areas where we think it would be difficult for departments to acquire it and do it themselves. The Aboriginal hiring is an area with retention issues: hiring, retaining and ensuring — particularly in Western Canada, where Aboriginal people are such a large part of the population — that we bring those people in the public service, so we are putting together the centre of expertise run by First Nations and Aboriginal people.
Senator Munson: How big is the centre?
Ms. Barrados: It is small. We are talking about three or four people. They are only starting. This whole activity that we have on what I call my service side needs to be used, because if it is not used, I have other things that I will use the money for. It is a support of the system and the transition.
Senator Munson: I would be curious to follow its route. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Barrados. As usual, you have willingly come before us and shared the information. We are pleased that you have responded to our report and given us some clues as to who else to contact. We have other witnesses lined up. I assure you that we will continue your action in overcoming the obstacles so that we have a truly integrated and representative workforce in the Public Service Commission. I thank the panel for coming.
Senators, we have a little bit of business to deal with. I am mindful of the fact that I have the chair of the caucus here. We planned to ask all the senators who have put forward proposals for future study to make their case. The difficulty is that every time we do that, we run out of time for one reason or another. As I indicated to Senator Fraser, I was not advised that it was what I like to call a command performance caucus. Sometimes we have informational sessions. This one seems to be more than that. We do have to cut off.
I suggest that tomorrow afternoon we have a steering committee meeting to determine how to deal with this matter. My initial proposal, so you can sleep on it and give me feedback, is that the steering committee should have an informal discussion with all the proposers to see if we can put together the proposals, how the money might be looked at and how the plan of action might be put together. Then we will make recommendations to the full committee with the budget implications.
That would mean also that tonight, however, we could deal with this, because we agreed that we would continue with the Human Rights Council. We discussed the budget and the future travel, both to New York and Geneva, if you recall, and that budget was pretty well what we had suggested. That has been circulated to you. We could pass this one so we at least have this out of the way, and then we would look at the other future studies.
The report of the Human Rights Council has been drafted, but we did not want to go beyond a draft. I had a quick look at it. I have indicated that I thought the editorial portion is good, but the recommendations need strengthening, so the steering committee should look at the recommendations first. In the next day or two, we will incorporate the testimony we heard today, and we will have the report translated and put out to the members quickly for consideration.
We want to be well in advance of that June date to signal. The department has been monitoring us and knows what we are doing. This type of report is not a surprise, but it is one that we want out.
I am proposing that the Steering Committee handle the future business and the Human Rights Council and that there would not be a meeting of the full committee next Monday. We would not have a committee meeting at all next Monday, and we would have a full future business Human Rights Council approval meeting the following week, which is May 7.
In other words, we will not have a committee meeting next Monday and we will have one the following Monday hopefully to nail down exactly the order of the future business and approval of the human rights report, with the Steering Committee working on it more.
Someone made the comment to me that I was too democratic. The committee will become a little less democratic, and the steering committee will deal with the various reports. We should discuss with all of those who have proposed a report what they envision and how they envision it. Then we will put it together. Regrettably, caucus pre-empts.
If that is acceptable, we need to pass the budget tonight for the Human Rights Council continuance.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The April 30 meeting is cancelled, and when is the long meeting you want for the report?
The Chairman: The following week.
The Chairman: It would be the report and future business. If the steering committee does its task well, I anticipate that you will have had the report to read and we should be in a position to discuss it and pass it with any amendments May 7, with filing immediately thereafter.
Senator Fraser: Do we want the steering committee next week; a week from today?
The Chairman: If we are available. As a steering committee we do not have to go to a Monday. We can find available time for the three members.
Senator Fraser: I ask because, as you know, everyone's timetable becomes insane as of Tuesday morning.
The Chairman: Tomorrow I want a steering committee. I was planning to suggest while the Senate sits, if you two are not involved with Question Period when it starts. If you are involved with Question Period or want to stay, it will be as soon as you give me the sign and Vanessa Moss-Norbury and Jean-Pierre Morin will be available.
Senator Fraser: We must be there to be loyal supporters.
The Chairman: It depends on what you are doing in Question Period. Sometimes I felt I needed to be there even if I was not asking a question because there was an area of concern. I leave it to you. It has worked well informally before. We have always done that. I ask Ms. Moss-Norbury to be there when Question Period starts, with Laura Barnett. Whenever you have a high sign, we can do that. Alternatively, we could set it for 3 p.m. I do not know if that clears us of Question Period or not.
We will target three o'clock for the Steering Committee. Then we will need another Steering Committee to talk about the future business later in the week or early, and then we can make our minds up. Frankly, selfishly, if I do not have to take the 6 a.m. takeoff time, I would avoid it so I could take the flight that gets in at 4:30 p.m. or something. We can negotiate it, as I say.
All the references that were filed with us in a serious way have been formulated into an order of reference that has been disseminated or will be.
The other is the budget. As you recall, we said that we would put in the usual budget for hospitality, consultants, et cetera — which is not much, compared to what I heard about the budget of another committee — and our travel expenses including eight senators. We were looking at a New York travel commitment and Geneva for a follow-up. The total is $152,809. This is the second time we are going through the budget. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.