Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, March 23, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 6:35 p.m. to examine issues of discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the Federal Public Service; to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity are being met; and to examine labour market outcomes for minority groups in the private sector.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, tonight we are dealing with the issues of discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the Federal Public Service, to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity are being met and to examine labour market outcomes for minority groups in the private sector.
Honourable senators, for the new senators and perhaps the rest of us too, I remind you that we have taken on the study of the Public Service Commission with respect to the four target areas that require immediate and urgent attention. We have filed reports as updates to what we believe the progress has been within the Public Service Commission in the four target groups up to the time of the last Parliament. We are continuing our study but broadening it to try to see how the entire labour market impacts the employment opportunities and possibilities within the Public Service Commission.
For that reason, as we pick up this topic again to continue our study, it was timely to call on a representative from Statistics Canada. Tonight, we have Geoff Bowlby, Director, Labour Statistics Division. The division has completed a timely analysis with respect to the labour market.
Mr. Bowlby, I see an array of people behind you, probably too many to sit at the table, but I understand those colleagues were involved in all the questionnaires and studies of Statistics Canada. If at any time you need their expertise, you can ask them to come to the table and identify themselves and the capacity in they work.
I invite you to give us an overview of what you examined and what the outcomes were as you see them in a broad way. Then, we will turn to questions. As I indicated to you, as the topic is so broad, it would be helpful to bring it down to a manageable conversation. Welcome and please make your opening remarks.
Geoff Bowlby, Director, Labour Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here.
The topic is broad. In this presentation, I have split it into different sections. In the first part, you will see an overview of the demographic trends among the four employment equity groups.
The Chair: Are you referring to the handout you have given us?
Mr. Bowlby: That is the one.
The Chair: It is entitled, The Labour Market Situation for Minority Groups in Canada?
Mr. Bowlby: That is right. I will take you through the presentation in a minute, slide by slide. The general structure of the presentation is such that first we will go through the demographic stuff. I will give an overview of the trends and the population among the different groups. We will then look at the labour market situation in general for each of those groups.
I know you are interested in talking about the issue of discrimination within the Federal Public Service, so I will provide you with a couple of slides on what we know about discrimination as a whole for Canada. Each of these slides are to provide you with the overview and the context you need to conduct your study but the slides do not dive right into the data on the Federal Public Service itself; they provides you with the national story. That is the basic structure of this presentation.
Senator Jaffer: May I have a clarification of what he said?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: The reason the presentation does not dive into the public service is because you did not do any specific research on that subject; is that correct? Your data does not dive into the Public Service Commission because you did not do any specific research on the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Bowlby: That is correct. We have data on the Federal Public Service, and I can provide you with some of that data. You will not see them in the slides, but in anticipation of your questions, I have some here.
My understanding was that you wanted the background and the general overview of the labour market in Canada and how various groups like Aboriginal people, visible minorities and disabled women are faring in the labour market today. The gist of the presentation is to provide that general overview.
The Chair: We understand that you did not conduct the study for us; the study was a broader one. However, we want to take the information, which would be helpful to us, and put it within the context of the Public Service Commission. I am pleased you will do a bit of that for us.
Mr. Bowlby: Yes, the first slide is on the population: the number of people who are immigrants to Canada, who are foreign-born, and their share within the population. The red line shows the percentage of immigrants in Canada and the blue bars show the absolute number. You can see that, over time, the number of immigrants in Canada has increased, as has the immigrant share of the population. In Canada, as of 2006, about one in five Canadians was born outside this country. That number is much higher than it has been for many years. For many years it was around 15 per cent. You can see from that red line that it has increased.
Second-generation Canadians make up a further 16 per cent of the population, so it is a growing population. In fact, since the 1990s, most of the growth in the population in Canada has come from immigration; that is, there is more net migration into Canada than there is natural increase in the population in births minus deaths. In the next 20 years, sometime between 2025 and 2030, the only source of population growth in the country will come from immigration.
The characteristics of immigrants have changed over the years. Not all that long ago, immigration to Canada came largely from Europe. However, the number one source region now is Asia; Europe is number two. More immigrant population is coming from Asia and Africa, and less is coming from Europe and the United States.
That trend affects the numbers in the next slide, the visible minority population. The blue bars, again, are the numbers and the light blue bars are the projected numbers of people who are visible minorities in Canada. The red line is the percentage share of the population that belongs to a visible minority. By "visible minority" we mean people other than Aboriginal people who are non-Caucasian in race and non-White in colour.
In Canada in 2006, 5.1 million people belonged to a visible minority. This number represents about 16 per cent of the population, which is up from 5 per cent in 1981. There has been a big increase in the rate of growth of the visible minority population — five times the increase of the general population.
Canada's cities have a high concentration of visible minorities. Toronto and Vancouver have the highest concentrations in Canada. In fact, returning to the topic of immigrants, which is related to visible minorities, Toronto has the highest share of non-Canadian-born, foreign-born population within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD — double the share in New York, for example, so a high concentration of foreign-born population. The change in the source countries over the years has led to a high concentration of visible minorities within these cities. It will not be long before, in Toronto and Vancouver, more than half the population will be a visible minority. That slide sets the context for the demographic trends among visible minorities.
The next slide looks at the population and how it has changed over time among Aboriginal people. There are two ways of looking at the Aboriginal population. You can look at it in terms of Aboriginal identity; people who identify themselves as Aboriginal people according to the census. Then, another concept is called Aboriginal ancestry. These people may or may not identify themselves as Aboriginal but recognize that somewhere in their past they have an ancestor who is Aboriginal. There are other ways of looking at the Aboriginal population as well, but those two are presented in this slide.
Identity, the red line, is probably the most common way of looking at things. With the 2006 Census, we measured almost 1.2 million people in Canada who are Aboriginal.
Some growth that you see in those numbers is real growth; that is, population growth. Some growth is because there is a greater propensity among Aboriginal people to identify as Aboriginal on the census. For various reasons, it is more likely today that Aboriginal people will identify themselves in the census than in the past.
Nevertheless, we know that fertility among Aboriginal people is higher than it is among non-Aboriginal people and that about 7 per cent of the current growth in Canada's population comes from the Aboriginal population — growth that is disproportionate to its population size.
The next slide looks at the disabled population. It, too, is increasing. The bar on the right is probably the one you want to draw your eye to first. That area shows, for two years, 2001 in blue and 2006 in red, the share of the population in Canada that was disabled. You can see that this population, too, has increased. About 14 per cent of the population in Canada is considered disabled, up from about 12 per cent in 2001.
Each of these graphs displays the fact that the four employment equity groups are increasing their population in Canada: immigrants from about 18 per cent in 2001 to 20 per cent in 2006; visible minority from 13 per cent to 16 per cent of the population, Aboriginal from about 3.3 per cent of the population to 3.8 per cent; and disabled from 12.4 per cent to 14.3 per cent. Each group has a greater share in the Canadian population.
The next slide shows the unemployment rate. Until recently, we had a tight labour market and there was a lot of talk about labour shortage in that we did not have enough people to do the things we wanted to do as a nation.
Of course, the story has changed in the last four or five months as the unemployment rate has gone from relatively low levels historically to straight up. The unemployment rate has climbed considerably in the last four or five months as employment has fallen considerably.
Nevertheless, the point in this graph is to show that, for many years, until this more recent period, we had low unemployment as a nation. These periods were of record low unemployment. In January of 2008, we had a record low unemployment rate of 5.8 per cent. There was strong demand for labour. At the same time, we see an aging population now beginning to leave the workforce, and that has put pressure on the supply side of labour.
The next slide shows data from 2007, so things have changed, but remember, all countries are going through this economic crisis right now. From an international perspective in 2007, Canada had a high employment rate. It was much higher than all other G7 countries, and much higher than the OECD average. About three quarters of our population had a job or was self-employed, and that figure compares to the average for G7 countries of a little under 70 per cent.
The point is that we are seeing a rise in the share of the population of the minority groups under study and an economy that was hot until recently. In a minute, we will show you that each of the employment equity groups sees a big gap in their labour market success when compared to non-minority groups in Canada. Those slides set the context.
The next slide shows the employment rate: the share of the population that is employed, men and women. You can see that women, over the years, have closed the gap; it is not as big as it once was. However, there is still a gap between the employment rates of men and women. I did not mean to sound disrespectful, but the numbers have gotten narrower over time.
Senator Goldstein: I think you mean they have narrowed the gap, not closed it. I think the word "closed" is what elicited the concern.
Mr. Bowlby: I am trying to be careful with my words. The gap is becoming "narrower," is the more appropriate term.
Women in Canada as well — like that graph that I showed for the general population — when compared to other countries, have a higher participation in the labour market in Canada than in other countries. Women also have a lower unemployment rate than men. Employment rates can be lower while unemployment rates can be lower as well. Women have lower unemployment than men, on average.
When we look at the quality of employment for women, on the whole it is probably not as good as it is for men. On average, women make less than men; about 77 cents for every dollar made by men. You see more parity in some occupations, for example teaching, nursing and some of the occupations that are more traditionally held by women. You see some narrowing in the earnings gap, but the gap is still there.
On average, in 2005 women made about $35,000, whereas men made about $46,000. A significant gap remains. Women are more likely to be working part-time. However, they are more likely to be doing so due to noneconomic reasons. They say they are staying home to take care of children, or it is personal preference. Women are more likely to work in temporary jobs and less likely to work in permanent jobs.
Women are less likely to be self-employed, but when they are, they work in the type of self-employment that pays the least. The best paid self-employed people own incorporated businesses, and have employees and such. They are more likely to be men than women. When women are self-employed, they tend to be unincorporated and do not have employees. Those types of businesses do not pay as well. On the whole, women make less than men, and that is true for those employed and self-employed.
The next slide is the employment rate among Aboriginal people. This data is from the 2006 census. It shows the Aboriginal population split into its components: the First Nations populations that live on reserves; the First Nations — or North America Indians as we used to call them — population that lives off reserve; Metis; and Inuit.
This graph shows the employment rate; again the share of the population that has a job or is self-employed. You can see that compared to the right bar, the non-Aboriginal population, each of the various groups within the Aboriginal population has an employment rate that is lower than the non-Aboriginal population. The group with the lowest employment, and the one with the most significant gap between the non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal populations, is the First Nations population on reserve, where barely half are employed compared to about 80 per cent for non-Aboriginal people. A large gap is seen there.
In terms of unemployment rates, we have information that is more up-to-date than these numbers. These numbers are for 2006; however this relationship holds up over time. The unemployment rate for the off-reserve Aboriginal population in 2008 was 9.2 per cent. That was up from 8.8 per cent in 2007.
In 2008, as a matter of comparison, the unemployment rate for the non-Aboriginal population was 5 per cent. The unemployment rate off reserve for Aboriginal people is almost double that of the non-Aboriginal population. We know the conditions on reserve are much worse than that.
There are happier stories. In Alberta, employment rates and unemployment rates for Aboriginal people suggests that there are successes in finding jobs in Alberta. In fact, an Aboriginal person living in Alberta is as likely to be employed as a non-Aboriginal person living outside of Alberta. However, Aboriginal people living in Alberta have lower employment rates than non-Aboriginal people living in Alberta. All this is to say that jobs are being found by Aboriginal people living in Alberta.
In contrast, in neighbouring Saskatchewan, employment rates are low for the off-reserve Aboriginal population. They are the lowest in the country. We have two provinces side-by-side where the employment rate is relatively high for Aboriginal people in Alberta and the lowest in the country in Saskatchewan.
The next slide looks at the last group under study — "last" in terms of the order that I am presenting the groups in — namely, the disabled population. This population, too, is less likely to be employed. In both 2001 and 2006, rates of employment among disabled people in Canada were lower than they were for the general population. In 2006, you can see — represented by the blue bar — a little over half of disabled people were employed, compared to a much higher rate for the nondisabled population.
Employment rates vary considerably by disability. Hearing disabilities, for example, mean one has a higher chance of employment than people with other disabilities. The most striking gap in the employment rate is among the population with a developmental delay. They have low employment rates, but the gap for people with hearing disabilities is not as big. There is a great variety of employment rates among the disabilities.
I said that was the last slide in terms of the employment rate, but I have not yet mentioned the visible minorities, and that is the next slide.
In this slide, you can see the employment rate for visible minorities — which is the dark blue — is a lower bar than that for the non-visible minorities, which is the light blue. That gap in the employment rates persists both for men and women, and over time.
These rates are the employment rates, and I have other statistics here on unemployment rates. I do not want to confuse things. Unemployment rates show the opposite trend, where there is higher unemployment among people who are visible minorities and lower unemployment for non-visible minorities. When you look at the different groups that are visible minorities, there is almost no gap in the unemployment and employment rates for people of Filipino descent, for example, but you see a big gap for people of Arab or West Asian descent.
Much like the disability story and the Aboriginal story, a lot of variety is found within the visible minority population and its subgroups. However, on the whole, like the other groups, labour market access is not as great for visible minorities.
I appeared roughly a year ago and we talked about immigrants in the labour market, so I know you are interested in immigrants as well. A number of slides here are on the latest we know about immigrants in the labour market in Canada. This story, too, is somewhat negative. I will give you the good news later.
This slide indicates a gap between the immigrant and the non-immigrant population in Canada for recent years, a gap that is widening over time. It went from 5.4 percentage points in 2006 to 5.9 in 2007, and to 6.7 currently. Interestingly enough, in 2007, we saw good employment growth among immigrants to Canada, but growth that is not keeping pace with their rate of population growth. More immigrants are employed, but there are not enough new jobs to keep pace with the influx and inflow of immigrants to Canada. That gap is widening and their employment rate is not rising much.
I want to review what we know about immigrants to Canada because important points are to be made here.
Immigrants to Canada are much more likely to have a university degree than the Canadian-born population. In fact, I have the numbers here. Over 50 per cent of immigrants, compared to 20 per cent Canadian-born citizens, have university degrees. They are much more likely to be educated, and in a good economy, that chart shows what happens. There are many questions about that gap, and shortly I will talk about research conducted by Statistics Canada to understand why this gap is emerging and has persisted over time.
I will tell you more about the context and what we know about immigrants in Canada. Like I said earlier, there has been a big shift in the source countries away from Europe and the United States and towards Asia and Africa. That is important.
African immigrants to Canada have the lowest employment rates of all groups coming in, whereas the gap is still there for immigrants from Europe. European immigrants to Canada still have a lower employment rate as compared to Canadian-born individuals. However, the gap is smaller than for African immigrants to Canada, who have a low employment rate.
Where you receive your education is important. Although I said immigrants to Canada are more likely to have a university degree, if you have received that university degree in Canada, you have a much higher chance to be employed than if you received the university degree outside of this country.
In particular, if you received your university degree from an African university, you will have a low employment rate; whereas immigrants to Canada who receive their education in Canada will have an employment rate that is much closer to Canadian-born individuals, although still lower, interestingly enough.
It seems that the longer the person has been in Canada, the higher the chance of being employed. You will see much higher unemployment rates among very recent and recent immigrants to Canada than for the established immigrants to Canada.
A big earnings gap has emerged over time. In 1980, recent immigrants made about 85 cents for every dollar that the Canadian-born individual made. By 2005, that ratio had dropped to 63 cents. That emerging gap, from 85 cents to 63 cents, is a large one.
The rate of low income has been rising among immigrants and falling among Canadian-born citizens. In 2004, low-income rates among immigrants were, in fact, 2.9 to 3 times higher than that of Canadian-born citizens, up from 2.5 during the 1990s.
More university-degree-holding immigrants are employed in low-skilled jobs. For example, in 2005, almost 3 in 10 immigrant male university graduates worked in occupations that normally require only high school education, which is more than double the rate of underemployment among Canadian-born individuals.
Not only is there an earnings mismatch, an earnings gap and a skills mismatch that indicates the quality of employment that immigrants receive is not as good as the quality of employment of Canadian-born citizens, but there are additional things. Immigrants to Canada are more likely to be working part-time involuntarily and less likely to be working in jobs where they are union members. On the whole, immigrant job quality is not as good as it is for Canadian-born people. It is harder to find a job, and when they find one, it is not as good, resulting in lower pay.
I promised some good news, and the next slide looks at the earnings of second-generation Canadians. Second-generation Canadians are earning as much as, or more than, Canadians who have been here longer. They close the gap by the second generation in terms of the earnings. A caveat to this finding is that the second generation is much more likely to have a university degree than even the first generation, therefore much more likely to have a university degree than Canadian-born individuals. They have to educate themselves heavily to close that gap. The gap is closed, but it comes as a result of a lot of education.
There is other good news about Canadian immigrants. They are generally happy that they came to Canada. We have run surveys asking their opinions of Canada, and three quarters say they would do it again, despite all this data. Immigrants do not come to Canada only for labour market success or to find a job; they come for other reasons. They enjoy the peace, security and quality of life Canada has to offer. In fact, depending on their immigrant class, anywhere between 80 per cent or 90 per cent of immigrants say they enjoy a higher quality of life in Canada than they did back home in their source country.
It is not all bad news. There is even more data that I find interesting. One fifth of immigrants say there is nothing they dislike about Canada. However, one major complaint is the lack of employment opportunities. The number one dislike about Canada is the weather. Otherwise, they have integrated well.
Senator Goldstein: The weather is only 12 months per year.
Mr. Bowlby: That is right.
Moving to the next slide, we have asked immigrants themselves what they perceive to be barriers to finding a job. The top responses that we hear are: not enough Canadian job experience; language problems; lack of employment opportunities, which is not a clear category, but that is what they said; and foreign credentials not accepted. These barriers are the top ones.
These perceptions are at the micro-level of what immigrants themselves perceive their barriers to be. On a broader level, we have conducted studies at Statistics Canada to find out some of the reasons behind the earnings gap we see. We have identified a few key reasons. First, the shift in source country has had a big impact. That shift explains about a third of the gap. Moving from European and American immigration to more Asian and African immigration has meant that the earnings gap has increased. In fact, that shift explains about a third of that gap.
The source country is a proxy for all kinds of other stuff. When immigrants come from Asia or Africa, and not from Europe or the United States, there is a much greater chance that they do not speak English or French. The number of immigrants who report that they do not know English or French has increased from about 30 per cent in the 1970s to about 45 per cent by the 1980s and 1990s. There is a big increase in the allophone population. That increase fits with what immigrants perceive, which is that language barriers are a problem.
The change in the source country is a proxy for language barriers. It is also a proxy for other things.
This view is all speculation, but moving from Europe where education systems, expectations in job interviews and that sort of thing are not that different from the North American system is less of a shock for the immigrant than coming from Asia. Having that network and knowing how to find a job is also captured in that variable that we call the source country.
The change in the source country explains about one third of the earnings gap. Another big chunk can be explained by the fact that for some reason — my colleagues can correct me if I am wrong but I believe the reason is unknown to us — employers are less likely to recognize foreign job experience than they did in the past.
That is a big explanation for the gap. Another part of the explanation is that all new entrants to the labour market today — be it a young mother who has never worked before or a young person graduating from college, university, or high school — are having more difficulty finding that first job than they had in the past.
It seems that immigrants are impacted in a way similar to our youth entering the labour market today. Not only immigrants but all new entrants to the labour market face these sorts of difficulties for some reason, which is another big thing that affects the earnings of immigrants.
The Chair: I am mindful of the time. Can you speed it up?
Mr. Bowlby: The high-tech downturn in the early 2000s had more of an impact on immigrants than on the non-immigrant population in terms of earnings. A disproportionate share of immigrants worked in high tech as engineers, computer software programmers, et cetera.
The last two slides look at what we know about discrimination. We ran this survey after the 2006 census, which shows that for the majority of the population, discrimination is not something that people experience; 86 per cent of the population 15 years of age and older had not experienced any discrimination or unfair treatment in the five previous years.
However, you see a big difference between the dark blue, which is the not-visible minority population, and the green colour, which is the visible minority population. Visible minority populations are much more likely to experience discrimination or unfair treatment over the five previous years than not-visible minority population.
If you flip to the next slide, you can see that when there is a perception of discrimination, it is most likely to occur in the workplace or when applying for a job. It exists in other places at well — in restaurants, on the street or in dealing with the police or the courts — but the most common occurrence is in the workplace or when applying for a job.
The previous slides indicate there is some level of discrimination out there for immigrants. However, it is important to say that when we asked immigrants what were their perceived barriers to employment, discrimination is down on the list. Only 14 per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds who encounter difficulties in finding employment cited discrimination as a factor. It is more common for immigrants to cite language barriers, lack of recognition of foreign credentials or a lack of Canadian work experience. These factors seem to be the bigger barriers, but nevertheless these statistics show perceived discrimination.
That is the substance of the presentation. I have a summary slide but we do not need to go through it. Hopefully I can answer your questions.
The Chair: This is a good overview. I know the area is broad, but I think senators have particular interests and concerns. I will ask for sharp questions and sharp responses to fit everyone in within the time allocated.
Senator Jaffer: I may not have understood this point, but you said you may have other slides relating to the specific study we are conducting; is that correct?
Mr. Bowlby: I do not have slides but I have numbers for you.
Senator Jaffer: Are you able to share those numbers now?
Mr. Bowlby: I have information from the census that looks at the share of the federal public service that is a visible minority. I did not have the other groups but I have visible minority status.
In 2006, excluding the Department of National Defence, about 10.9 per cent of the workforce was of visible minority status. In all industries, for the economy as a whole, the proportion of the workforce with visible minority status was 15.3 per cent. Therefore, visible minorities were under-represented within the federal government. I knew you would be interested in those statistics. The proportion for the Department of National Defence was 5 per cent.
All visible minority groups, with the exception of Arab and Japanese groups, had a lower rate of representation within the federal public service. I thought you would be interested in some of those bits and pieces.
On the topic specifically of discrimination, Statistics Canada ran a survey on behalf of the federal public service. We asked questions on perceptions of discrimination within the federal public service. Discrimination was fairly rare, but 17 per cent of employees in the federal public service said that in the two years previous to the survey in 2005, they had been a victim of discrimination on the job.
Other sorts of indicators of discrimination or harassment — violence, for example — came from that survey. Happily, only 2 per cent had experienced any physical violence in the workplace, but 22 per cent felt they had been the victim of harassment on the job. The 17 per cent was for victims of discrimination and 22 per cent felt they were harassed on the job.
Senator Goldstein: Was that 22 per cent part of the 17 per cent?
Mr. Bowlby: No.
Senator Goldstein: It was 22 per cent in absolute terms.
Mr. Bowlby: Yes; some people could have been the same in both groups. Some people who felt they were discriminated against also could have felt they were harassed.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How would you know that? Page 16 has no gender for people who felt they had been discriminated against. Gender is one of the classifications that is left out. How would you know they might be the same group?
Mr. Bowlby: I know they might be. I have taken a look at the numbers. I am not sure if I understand your question.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This question is about discrimination and unfair treatment. You have lists of ethnicity, culture, race, language, accent and religion. Disability, gender and age are missing and so on. I do not know how you determined these lists but gender was not included.
However, you said that 22 per cent said they were harassed and 17 per cent were discriminated against, and you said they could be some of the same people. How do you know if you did not ask that question?
Mr. Bowlby: First, I know because of the two different survey sources. The 22 per cent and the 17 per cent that I referred to came from the employee opinion survey conducted within the federal public service. Those numbers are at a national level for the country as a whole. In both surveys, you can split it male and female but I did not present it; I do not have the numbers in front of me. However, the numbers can be split by gender.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was struck by how low these figures are. I do not believe them. It is hard for me to believe that people do not feel more discriminated against in this country and I wonder what impact gender would have had if it had been included. Women are earning less than males of the same ethnic groups.
Mr. Bowlby: We can split data for men and women.
The Chair: If you can provide it, I can return to Senator Jaffer's question.
Mr. Bowlby: In fact, that wraps it up in terms of the extra things I was able to pull together. Each of these survey sources are beyond my expertise. I do not want to go into them too much but these numbers are the ones I know and the ones I thought you would be interested in.
Senator Jaffer: Do you have numbers on the perception of promotion, especially at the EX-1 level within the public service?
Mr. Bowlby: No.
Senator Jaffer: Are there any analyses on accreditation and finding jobs?
Mr. Bowlby: Do you mean on immigrants, foreign credential recognition and that sort of thing?
Senator Jaffer: That is right.
Mr. Bowlby: We are working on a study now that will look at that subject, and we are still crunching the numbers. We are looking at the field of study for immigrants, and comparing that field of study to the occupations they are working in now. We will then compare those numbers to numbers for the general population, so that people can see the degree to which foreign credentials are not being recognized. They are not being recognized, and we can see that in the numbers now.
Senator Jaffer: When will the study be ready?
Mr. Bowlby: It will be ready by June.
Senator Poy: Mr. Bowlby, when you spoke about immigrants and visible minorities, did you put them together or are they separate? You did not define the terms. Does "visible minority" include anyone who is a visible minority plus an immigrant? Is that how you define the term?
Mr. Bowlby: No, it is anybody who has the ethnicity that means they are a visible minority regardless of whether they have immigrant status.
Senator Poy: Does the term include the immigrants who are visible minorities?
Mr. Bowlby: It is the visible minority status for everybody in the country.
Senator Poy: I am interested in page 13. A lot of studies have been done on the federal public service. I am more interested in the general population. This slide is for the general population, right? Are these immigrants that are not necessarily visible minorities?
Mr. Bowlby: That is right.
Senator Poy: The chart is of the general population.
Mr. Bowlby: That is right.
Senator Poy: Have you ever conducted a study on second-, third- or fourth-generation visible minorities who are born here in Canada and who are still behind the "eight ball" in their earnings? I want to know why.
Mr. Bowlby: This question is something beyond my expertise. On the topic of "why," I do not know but I will tell you what I have in my notes:
Median income of second-generation men and women is higher than that of first- and third- or more generations. This was true regardless of visible minority status. However, among the second generation, visible minorities had lower earnings than their non-visible minority counterparts.
Senator Poy: These visible minorities are the ones born in Canada, with the same education and with no language or cultural problems. Therefore, I think it is important that we find out why.
The Chair: Can I clarify something? When you say second generation, we do not know whether they have a language problem; we do not know what their credentialing problems are.
Senator Poy: They are born here. They go to school in Canada.
The Chair: Language competence may be different depending on where they are, how they are raised, at what age they go to kindergarten, whether they are as fluent in one of our official languages, et cetera.
Senator Poy: I do not see why not.
The Chair: I was born in Canada and I did not speak English or French until I was five years old. I want to understand: you are saying the second generation has these drawbacks in earnings; is that correct?
Senator Poy: In earnings.
Mr. Bowlby: On the whole, the second generation makes as much or more than other Canadian-born individuals. What I said about visible minorities is a little different. Among the second generation, visible minorities had lower earnings than their non-visible-minority counterparts.
The Chair: However, we do not know why. You have not conducted surveys of that group regarding their perceptions, have you? In other words, we know the fact but we do not know why.
Mr. Bowlby: Do you mind if I turn to my colleagues to see if they know?
The Chair: We want to know if anyone knows why, or has an inkling as to why this situation might exist.
Jane Badets, Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: I have here an expert on immigration. A lot of data you have seen is from Tina Chiu, who is Chief of the Immigration and Ethnicity Section.
Tina Chui, Chief, Immigration and Ethno-cultural Analysis, Statistics Canada, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division: First, second generation requires a definition. We define "second generation" as those born in Canada with at least one parent born outside of Canada. We conducted studies that looked at cross-tabulating of Canadian born versus foreign born, as well as the visible minority status. We found a lot of variations among the groups. Certain groups are faring relatively better than the other groups. For example, second-generation Chinese, South Asians and Japanese have more success than those who are Canadian-born, whereas other groups still have challenges in terms of their income as well as employment status.
Senator Poy: Is that the generalization?
Ms. Chiu: Yes.
Senator Poy: Is it recent?
Ms. Chui: I took it from the 2006 Census so it is fairly recent.
Ms. Badets: Mr. Bowlby talked more about difficulties among recent immigrants — probably since the 1990s — in the labour market. We do not know how, in the longer term, their children will make out in the labour market, either. Most of our studies are based on immigrants who came here in the 1970s, and their children went to school and entered the labour market in the 1980s or early 1990s. The story is still unwritten. However, we know the second generation does well.
Senator Poy: However, Mr. Bowlby said that visible minorities in the second generation are not doing as well in earnings.
Ms. Chui: As a whole —
Senator Poy: If you separate them in groups —
Ms. Chui: Yes, if we separate them, then we see variations by group.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You made a number of comments about women and men. For example, women earn 77 cents for every dollar made by men, et cetera. The new senators may not know that Statistics Canada produces a book called Women in Canada, based on the 2006 Census. Every government department must make cuts. Statistics Canada has conducted a survey asking who uses what data. This report has not been raised as frequently as some others. I know Status of Women Canada has been asked for their response to cutting this report. My fear is that this volume of data will be cut from our data banks.
Part of my question to all of you is this: If you do not segregate your data in the ways that this book segregates it, how will you be able to give us gender-based statistics on some of the things you have discussed? How will you make these charts if you do not do this work? If immigrant women are not getting the jobs that immigrant men are although they are university-educated; if women are paid 77 cents on the dollar; if universities such as the University of Western Ontario have implemented pay equity only in the last two years: how do you expect women to be in academic or other professions that need this type of segregated data?
If we are not there, then we cannot use it. If you cut out this data, I have no lobbying base to push for women's rights with the government. For me, it is a terribly serious thing. I am not asking you to comment; I am simply telling you one senator's issues with cutting it.
Mr. Bowlby: The data in our databases is different from what we may publish. The data is there but there is an expense in how we disseminate and publish it.
We can have all the data and be able to cut it and present it on a custom basis, as I proposed to do for you. We may not have a paper publication like the one you are referencing. The information in Women in Canada is different from the data on page 13.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are you saying that all the databases you need to build this book will still be gathered in the census, or however you gather data?
Mr. Bowlby: Most data comes from the census or the Labour Force Survey.
Ms. Badets: I work on gender issues too. I want to reassure you that we always collect our data by gender, and almost all our tables are by gender. We are not moving away from that means of collecting data; we are looking at how we compile the information and prepare the analysis in different ways. We are still considering the production of Women in Canada. We are talking to Status of Women Canada about that issue.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am glad you are considering that issue because the Auditor General will come out with a report on gender-based analysis in May. Department of Finance people were unable to talk about gender in regard to filing tax returns when they were examined last week before the budget was passed. We need some kind of easy, reachable data without having to look at the entire labour market.
Ms. Badets: We are looking at different options. We know the data is being used and it is important. Therefore, I assure you that we will look at it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Here are two concerned senators who want the data. If we can help you, let us know.
The Chair: As I understand Senator Nancy Ruth's question, if you eliminate this publication, which apparently is useful to obtain information on gender issues, where will we go to obtain this data? Where will the average Canadian go to obtain this data? I appreciate that you will still collect it. I appreciate that it will be in your data bank, but how do we access it? If you cannot answer that question tonight, can we have your response in writing?
Ms. Badets: Yes.
The Chair: If this publication is eliminated, how do we access the information contained therein?
Ms. Badets: We can follow up on that question, but we will still include data on our website that will be disaggregated by gender.
The Chair: Is everything in this written access document already on the website?
Ms. Badets: The document brings different aspects together and includes analysis that we do not always prepare. That is what this particular publication does. We still produce a lot of data by gender and it is available on our website. The question to be resolved is how we compile it. We are looking at the options and talking to Status of Women Canada as well.
The Chair: Will you report back to us on how you intend to handle this issue, should the publication be cut, so we will have that information?
Ms. Badets: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Martin: I commend Mr. Bowlby and his team on an almost accurate study. There is always room for improvement. It was interesting listening to your presentation because it mirrors a lot of my own experiences. I am not Canadian born, but I am considered "second" generation by certain standards and descriptions. My parents were born outside the country and I was raised here. I look forward to the foreign credentials study because that is a key piece in how immigrants integrate into the labour market in Canada.
In response to the point on your summary slide, "Immigrants having trouble moving into Canadian labour market, despite the high rates of university education," I offer one insight based on my observations for you to consider.
As an example, my parents came from Korea in the 1970s. At that time, the country was in the developing stage. The standard of living was lower. When that first wave of immigrants came to the country — most of my friends' parents — they did not hesitate to take jobs at any entry point, including my father who has several university degrees. Most of my friends' parents all worked at the same menial, difficult work despite their education. Their children, the second generation, were well integrated and successful.
Today, I see the Korean community growing, particularly in big cities like Vancouver and Toronto. When the community is larger, members also have more opportunities for employment within that community. Many new immigrants now do not necessarily go beyond the community. It is a safer place for them to try to find employment. However, the standard of living is higher and their expectations are higher. Therefore, many of them will not even consider a job that is below their level, in their eyes. Their desire to save face — their pride — gets in the way. I see many new immigrants who are unemployed or struggling for a long time to find the right job in their field. The first wave of immigrants who came several decades ago may have started jobs, and then they worked their way up eventually. This trend may explain the higher level of unemployment.
That trend also impacts the second generation. Why do second-generation visible minorities perhaps make less than others when they were born and raised here?
Identity questions are affected by watching their parents. How well their parents have adjusted impacts greatly on their own sense of identity — what support they were able to receive from their parents. It is the same for all children. Most of my friends who have been successful have parents who have integrated somehow. For that reason, they are able to move on and become fully integrated.
This study is interesting but many second generation people who marry beyond their cultural group often seem more integrated.
These comments are simply observations.
The Chair: Do you want a response?
Senator Martin: I welcome a response but I am interested in the foreign credential piece because that will help, period. I wish there was more movement on foreign credentials because it concerns me the most.
Mr. Bowlby: I can respond only to the foreign credential part. We are more than happy to come back once those numbers are crunched and present you with all the information that we have in that report. Unfortunately, now is not the time because we will not have the numbers available until June. We recognize that the foreign credential piece is key, and many people are asking for that kind of information. We have been working on it for a while.
The Chair: Will your survey take into account a more international global market? Generations were caught up in the country where they immigrated and their capabilities once there. However, more often than not, it is expected, for example, for those in the high-tech industry that they will be able to find a job in almost any country because it is the credentials that count, not the country they go to, or the country they leave. The value of the credentials should be transferable.
Will your study look at the international aspect of credentialing, or will it be simply a snapshot of Canada and credentialing?
Mr. Bowlby: It will be in respect of Canada only.
It is not an easy study even for Canada. The focus, first and foremost, is how well immigrants to Canada who are trained in certain regulated occupations move into those occupations. That question is difficult to answer, and is only the first part of the study.
The study focuses on Canada because we have good data to examine. Not all countries have that same kind of data. It would be difficult to look at the experiences of other countries. Our access to such data is not as great as the access is in Canada, and the quality of the statistics is not always equivalent to that of Statistics Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Based on Statistics Canada documents, immigrants who settle in Quebec seem to have a higher unemployment rate than in all other provinces, even if they are university graduates. Are you aware of the factors involved in this situation?
Mr. Bowlby: We do not know all the factors involved but we do know that, in Quebec, that are more immigrants from Africa. All over the country, immigrants from Africa have more difficulty in the labour market. This is one of the factors involved.
Senator Pépin: Do Blacks suffer from a particular form of racism? In your studies, do you use the racial factor to determine the problems of an immigrant group? It seems African groups have much more difficulty than others. If there is a special problem, it is because this group tends to settle more in Quebec. Do you account for the racial factor in your studies? This is something worth investigating.
Mr. Bowlby: Generally speaking, it is difficult to determine if racism is causing problems in the labour market. I do not believe Statistics Canada has particularly studied racism and its effect on the labour market in the case of immigrants from Africa who settle in Quebec.
[English]
Ms. Chui: We know that Blacks constitute the largest visible minority in the province of Quebec. As well, we know from our ethnic diversity survey, which was conducted in 2002, and the questions on discrimination, that people who are of Black origin are more likely to report that they experience discrimination. The challenge is to put the two together. First, we are looking at different data sources. It is important to keep that information in mind when looking at the data, and then in making sense of the data. We would need to conduct the survey and ask people if they experienced discrimination, in particular in the labour force, and then look at the various visible minority groups in Quebec. That kind of information is possible from some of our data, such as the ethnic diversity survey, which was conducted in 2002.
We must be mindful of the time gap when we talk about issues in 2009. We must be mindful to look at not only the source of immigrants that settle in Quebec but also at the circumstances of their coming to Canada, which means their class of admission. Are they economic immigrants, family-class immigrants or refugees? We could do the analysis by class of admission to understand the breakdown. We know that people who come to Canada from different categories have certain issues in terms of their integration into the labour force.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Senator Jaffer talked to us of a report published in Ontario last November on causes of youth violence. The report mentioned racism. I know Quebec has a more serious problem but this is also present in other provinces, particularly in the case of Blacks. I would like to know more about this because I think it is very important.
[English]
Ms. Chui: I agree. It is important.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you ever ask Caucasians and people in Quebec which groups they discriminate against the most? I come from a Christian tradition and have found that there are many references to anti-Black in the culture — for example, Black Friday. How do you get at the cultural roots of the specific discrimination unless you ask everyone else which groups they discriminate against and why. What an interesting study that would be but you do not do it.
Ms. Chui: We could ask that question but when we conducted the survey, we found that attempting to measure discrimination brings with it a certain challenge: Do people admit that they discriminate against other groups?
Senator Nancy Ruth: They might admit it privately in a survey.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: It was mentioned earlier that women immigrants have trouble finding employment even if they are university graduates. Your statistics clearly show that there is a salary gap.
Do you know the reason for these differences in the employment and unemployment rates? Also between men and women? These are very interesting figures.
[English]
Mr. Bowlby: We will look into it and see if there is any information. I do not know offhand why there might be differences in earnings and employment rates among men and women who are immigrants to Canada.
Ms. Badets: Again, it could be related to the types of jobs they do or their participation in the labour market, and also the programs. Ms. Chiu made a valid point in terms of immigrants. The programs they come under and the reasons they come to Canada are important as well. We probably find more women in the family class when they are admitted as immigrants to Canada as opposed to those specifically selected to go into the labour market.
Senator Pépin: Yes, but the women with university degrees do not find jobs as readily as men.
Senator Jaffer: From what you have said, and from what is in front of us, African-born immigrants have higher unemployment rates in 2006, regardless of when they arrived. In 2007, employment rates improved a little bit, but they are still modest. The unemployment figures within the African-Canadian population are troubling. From your census, is there an understanding why the situation for African-Canadians is so dismal when it comes to employment?
Mr. Bowlby: No; when we looked at the reasons for these gaps, we tended to look at the issue because the bigger questions were there: At the broad level, why are we seeing these gaps? I mentioned earlier, for example, a change in source country. Language and cultural barriers come through in some of those statistics, but I have never seen a study that looks specifically at why African immigrants are not as successful in terms of employment rates and earnings.
Senator Jaffer: Is there nothing you can see from your census that can help us?
Mr. Bowlby: There might be, but I do not know what those numbers are. We can take a look at this area as well and get back to you.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you for an interesting presentation, Mr. Bowlby.
I appreciate that working with census figures, you cannot go below the strata that are available to you; you work with what you have. Is there anything within the census figures to allow you to consider the extent to which cultural determinants of particular cultural communities will impact upon employment or unemployment?
I am a first-generation Canadian. In my milieu, if you did not go to university and acquire a degree, you were dead. You had the choice of either being a professional or a successful businessman; there were no third options. That cultural determinant is intrinsic in the culture.
You have dealt solely with extrinsic determinants, to all practical intents and purposes. Is there any way you can cull out more details?
Mr. Bowlby: From the census, I do not think so, but maybe there are other sources.
Ms. Badets: We conducted a couple of surveys, which we spoke about. One is the ethnic diversity survey, in which we asked questions about parental educational background, which was also found to be a factor in terms of how the children of immigrants perform in the labour market. We have asked about ethnic networks in terms of the extent to which one's friends are of the same or a different ethnic group. Academics often use this measure as an indicator of social inclusion or exclusion in society.
Other than that, I do not think we asked any other types of questions. We ask factual types of questions.
Senator Goldstein: This comment is not a criticism; it is an observation. When you said that 17 per cent of the people in the public service had experienced discrimination in the previous two years, you prefaced that remark by saying that the experience of discrimination in the public service was low.
Did you have an expectation that discrimination would be higher? One in five Canadians in the public service apparently experiences discrimination. That number is shocking to me.
Mr. Bowlby: That actually is a criticism, and a fair one. I should not have made that comment. I had no expectation beforehand what that figure would be or should be. Seventeen per cent is the number. There was no expectation of what the number should be or whether it is high or low.
The Chair: Can you forward to us the definition of "discrimination" that was used in the questionnaire? That definition is also important.
Senator Goldstein: That is a smart question.
The Chair: I think you were leading to the point that levels of discrimination can vary from one level to an intolerable, physical level. If we know the level and type of discrimination, if we know where it is coming from and what type it is, then we would know how to solve it.
Senator Goldstein: In slide 11, I note that in 1981, members of minorities were more widely employed, in both genders, than is the case now. Is there any explanation at all for that finding?
Mr. Bowlby: There is not one that I am aware of. We tend to look at what is happening now.
Senator Goldstein: Could it have been a reporting issue of some kind?
Mr. Bowlby: No, it would not be due to reporting. There would be some real story there. I am not aware of what the cause might be because, as I said, we focus on the gap that has emerged now.
Senator Goldstein: I understand that focus, but I wonder if we can learn from what was happening in 1981.
Ms. Chui: That is a good observation. We would need to analyze the data to nail down the reasons. The majority of the visible minority populations came after the 1980s. We might even be looking at a population that is Canadian-born. Again, this chart contains high-level data and we would need to analyze the data more.
Further to that factor is the age group. Age has a major effect on employment. I do not suggest that is the situation now. We could look at the statistics in relation to the visible minority who reported that data in 1981, and also the age pattern, to determine whether age also played a role in these statistics.
Senator Goldstein: Is there any way you can do that for us, or is that too much to ask?
Ms. Chui: Sure, we can get back to you. That request is not a big job.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Mr. Bowlby, for your presentation. It was enlightening and has raised many questions.
I have three quick questions. One is with respect to labour market outcomes. When I look at established minorities or immigrants, and our Aboriginal Peoples here in Canada, we have many of the same challenges in terms of the labour market.
In terms of immigrants, unfortunately we have situations where we do not recognize the credentials of immigrants when they come here. You mentioned earlier the cultural and language barriers and lack of knowledge about Canada's labour market. The same applies to Canada's Aboriginal Peoples, except I dare say that even though the situation of Aboriginal Peoples is improving in terms of the level of education they are attaining, immigrants fare better in that domain. Nonetheless, I have the same challenges.
Has your analysis suggested any conclusions about the reasons for the similar labour market outcomes in terms of the barriers that immigrants and Aboriginal people face?
Mr. Bowlby: I do not know of any study that looks at the similarity of the barriers between immigrants and Aboriginal people.
The impact of education is significant for the Aboriginal population. When Aboriginal people have a university degree, employment rates are high, and it helps to narrow the gap. Unemployment rates among Aboriginal people who do not have a university degree are much higher than unemployment rates for non-Aboriginal people with the same level of education.
Unemployment rates among Aboriginal people with a university degree are still higher than they are for the non-Aboriginal population with the same level of education, but the gap is much smaller than it is for Aboriginal people with high school or less.
Data suggest that the returns from the investment that Aboriginal people make in acquiring a university degree are probably greater than the investment in, and the returns from, education for non-Aboriginal people.
Senator Brazeau: My second question deals with slide 15 of your presentation with regard to those who have reported discrimination. When I look at this slide, I also tend to agree with what Senator Nancy Ruth said earlier; namely, that discrimination seems to be low. Before I make that conclusion, can we compare this slide to something else to let us make that assertion?
Mr. Bowlby: The best comparison might be within groups, one group to another, for that perspective.
For example, it might seem low that, on the whole, about 14 per cent of the population does not experience any form of discrimination or does not perceive any discrimination, but 36 per cent of visible minorities do experience discrimination.
If you took Senator Nancy Ruth's suggestion and looked at male-female groups, you would see a big difference. I do not know if we can, but if we were able to split this data into Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups, you would probably see a big difference as well.
Senator Brazeau: Do you have a similar graph or table from perhaps five, six or whatever amount of years ago that we can compare to the data we have before us?
Mr. Bowlby: The data are all new.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: My third question is about immigrant employment in Quebec. Did you study the effects of Bill 101 on immigrant employability? Did the Charter of the French Language have a specific impact on immigrants?
[English]
Mr. Bowlby: The short answer is no.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: I will acknowledge that the question is rather political.
Mr. Bowlby: Exactly. When Statistics Canada publishes analytical data, it is very important for statisticians to remain neutral in political matters.
[English]
For the credibility of the statistics, it is important to stay neutral, so we have not conducted a study like that, nor would we engage in anything like that.
Senator Brazeau: However, it would be interesting.
Mr. Bowlby: That is for you to decide.
The Chair: In the Aboriginal people's category, we were told that Aboriginals in the public service are gaining ground. The problem is that Aboriginal employees are centred in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and they not evenly distributed throughout the public service. My own conclusion is that they are not faring as well as they should be across the broad spectrum. They are finding employment opportunities only in a niche, and not across the public service. That conclusion concerns me, particularly, if we are talking about dismantling or changing the ministry at some point in the future.
However, I have been heartened to learn that, within my own province, as young Aboriginal people gain a good education, they have more opportunities within their own groupings, whether on reserve or off reserve: social workers are hired within new models of social work in the Aboriginal community; business opportunities are there for them; a new native bank has been started, et cetera.
Do we have any statistics with respect to where they find employment opportunities when they have a better education, so that we can better judge whether the public service reflects the same dilemmas about giving new opportunities to Aboriginal people but not giving them across the board? Are Aboriginal people employed in Aboriginal-designated industries, or are they receiving their fair share across the board?
Mr. Bowlby: We have looked at the industries in which Aboriginal people are employed. I am trying to recall that data, and I will provide you with the answer.
The Chair: If you do not have it now, you can provide it to us later.
Mr. Bowlby: I recall that Aboriginal people are more likely to be working in the public service and in the skilled trades.
We will provide you with the numbers. We have the numbers both from the census for the total Aboriginal population and from the Labour Force Survey — the one from which we obtain the unemployment rates every month — for the off-reserve population.
The Chair: Regarding second-generation workers, Senator Goldstein made interesting comments about culture in that the second generation family and cultural group provide some of their expectations and their idea of opportunities.
When I was growing up, working for the Public Service Commission was one of the plum positions in Canada. Anyone who had this job was really set. They had security, job opportunities and advancement.
More recently, when we conducted our studies, we found that we are not reaching out across Canada. Too many contractual short-term positions lead into the long-term job rather than providing a fair opportunity across the board.
Do you have anything that points to minorities and cultural groups in the second generation? How many are employed in the public service or see the public service as an opportunity? That question is broad, but I am getting at this situation: the parents come to the country, they work, whether at menial jobs or better than that, and their children receive an education here. Do they see the Public Service Commission as an option for them today?
Mr. Bowlby: We do not have the information on whether they perceive it to be something good or bad, or whether that option is there at all.
However, we have information from the census that we will provide as well, which shows you what numbers and what share of the public service is made up of second-generation Canadians. We do not have that information in front of us, but we can provide it.
With respect to the perceptions of access and whether it is a good thing to be in the public service, we do not have that information.
The Chair: You alluded to Alberta and Saskatchewan in one case. Is there any data on your slides that shows a regional variation that we should know about? You have given broad-brush national statistics.
We have said that hiring practices in the Public Service Commission are Ottawa centered although many of our new immigrants are based elsewhere across Canada. That situation might mean we must advertise differently for recruitment. Perhaps you can reflect on whether there is any variation between regions that skews this data in an important way and get back to us with that information.
Mr. Bowlby: The type of information we can provide is like that which I mentioned. I said that Toronto has the highest concentration of foreign-born people in the OECD; double that of New York.
The Chair: That information would be helpful in our study for positioning the labour market force and the public service, in particular.
It remains only to thank you. We fully understood that your testimony would be a broad-brush overview. You provided a lot of statistics that we did not yet have. We thank you for bringing them to us in a digestible form.
We will continue our study of labour markets and their impact on the Public Service Commission and other sectors. We may ask you for more information, and we may ask you to come back and elaborate on what you have provided.
Honourable senators, our next witnesses are from the Public Service Commission of Canada. They are Maria Barrados, President; Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch; and Paula Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity.
They have testified before us many times and have provided the data upon which we have formed our opinions and based the recommendations in our report. Some time has passed since we issued that report. I know that they put on the record their initiatives and some of the expected outcomes of them. We would appreciate hearing an update on those initiatives, particularly in hiring practices within the four target groups.
We know that much has changed. Hiring is taking place within the backdrop of the economic crisis so our witnesses may want to add something about the labour market and the opportunities within the public service.
Ms. Barrados, I leave it to your judgment to bring forward your comments, opinions and reflections on the Public Service Commission of Canada today, particularly within the ambit of our study. Please give an opening statement. You know the senators will be eager to ask questions afterwards.
[Translation]
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to this Committee to discuss employment equity in the federal public service. This evening, I have with me, from the Public Service Commission of Canada, Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Paula Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity.
One of the main objectives of the Employment Equity Act is to correct conditions that disadvantage employment for four designated groups, namely, Aboriginal peoples, women, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities. Under this legislation, Treasury Board is responsible for the government's overall policy on employment equity. For its part, the Public Service Commission is responsible for identifying and eliminating barriers in recruitment and staffing, and for developing policies and practices that promote a more representative public service.
Under our fully delegated staffing system, the PSC monitors how departments and agencies exercise their responsibilities with respect to representativeness and other staffing values set out in the Public Service Employment Act or PSEA. We provide information on hiring and staffing activities and statistical analyses for the 82 organizations under the PSEA. We also review our policies and guidelines to ensure that we are providing organizations with the support they need. We report annually to Parliament on these activities, including progress on employment equity in staffing and recruitment.
[English]
Our annual report for 2007-08 was tabled in Parliament on December 2, 2008. This year, the report did not include statistics on the employment of all four employment equity groups. This information was omitted due to the fact that we had new information that suggested that appointments of visible minorities to the public service may have been underestimated. In other words, more visible minority candidates were appointed than had previously been reported.
Until recently, information on the appointments of visible minorities was provided by departments based on voluntary self-identification by employees through surveys. This information is collected in the employment equity data bank held by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Using this information, the Public Service Commission stated in its 2006-07 report that the percentage of appointments of visible minorities to the public service was 8.7 per cent, keeping them the only under-represented designated group in the federal public service. At that time we indicated that we were undertaking further research including our web-based public service reporting system, PSRS.
The PSRS is a recruitment and screening tool used for external advertised hiring processes. In 2005, the system was expanded across Canada and updated to comply with the new Public Service Employment Act, PSEA. The online application has a link to an automated self-declaration form for completion by applicants from EE groups on a volunteer basis.
We have examined this data for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. Based on this new information, we concluded that the recruitment rate for advertised processes for visible minorities was 15.6 per cent in 2006-07 and 17.3 per cent for 2007-08. More in-depth information can be found in handout one.
We have a high degree of confidence in these statistics, which represent significant increases over earlier calculations. Our analysis and data are only for advertised hiring processes, which account for 72 per cent of all appointments to the public service. We are exploring ways to collect similar EE data on the non-advertised processes.
The Public Service Commission is currently working with our partners to develop a common methodology for measuring and reporting on the representation of EE groups and public service appointments and population. We are committed to reporting the results of these discussions as well as releasing the appointment rates on all EE groups in our 2009-10 Annual Report to Parliament.
Accurate information is vital for deputy ministers, managers and human resources professionals so that they may better identify their needs and develop appropriate staffing plans and strategies.
A reliable approach to measuring appointments to the public service is also critical in assessing progress and comparing workforce representation of designated groups against the benchmarks established by the national workforce availability estimates. Those benchmarks were recently updated by the labour program at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada based on the 2006 Census and survey data for persons with disabilities. This information is outlined in handout two.
According to the PSRS data I mentioned earlier, the recruitment rates for visible minorities were higher than their workforce availability estimates based on both the 2001 and 2006 census. Those figures are contained in the first handout distributed to the committee.
The workforce availability analysis shows visible minorities who have Canadian citizenship comprise 12.5 per cent of our workforce. The report also states that 54 per cent of visible minorities live in Ontario, followed by British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta. This brings me to the national area of selection policy.
[Translation]
The PSC has long held that access for Canadians to federal public service jobs is a fundamental value. We have steadily expanded the requirement to use National Area of Selection and remove geographic limits on external staffing. In December of 2008, the PSC extended National Area of Selection to almost all externally advertised non-officer level jobs, including clerical and secretarial jobs. This means that all Canadians, regardless of where they live or work, will be able to apply for the vast majority of federal public service jobs that are open to the public.
This also applies to many Federal Student Work Experience Program employment opportunities. Through this enhanced access, the PSC helps ensure the public service draws from, and better reflects, the diverse backgrounds, skills and professions that are a unique resource for Canada.
[English]
The Public Service Commission has had several staffing initiatives to increase representation of visible minorities in the executive group. As a result of our first collective staffing process, completed in February 2008, 27 prequalified visible minority candidates were placed in executive positions. Building on that success, the commission launched a second external appointment process establishing a pool of 30 qualified visible minority candidates at the EX-1 level. I have recently written to deputy heads to advise them that fully-assessed visible minority candidates are now available for immediate appointment to the executive ranks. We have found that focused collective staffing initiatives can achieve real progress toward improving employment equity representation.
I also want to acknowledge the dedicated work of the Visible Minorities Champions Committee under the leadership of Morris Rosenberg, the Deputy Minister of Health Canada. This kind of senior leadership is essential for dialogue, sharing of good practices and sustaining momentum toward a more diverse public service.
We are also working with the visible minority community, in particular the National Council of Visible Minorities, to build awareness and understanding of these complex issues.
In conclusion, I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in the recruitment of visible minorities. We must continue our efforts to build a public service that is representative of our diverse society.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barrados. I want to ask a question before I turn the floor over to the senators.
If I recall, you said this is the 72 per cent that you have targeted and you have re-established how you look at visible minorities through that process. These others, which are the "non" category, the other portion, who are they and what do you intend to do to bring in similar processes, or are you looking at a different process for them?
Ms. Barrados: The Public Service Employment Act allows people to be brought into the public service in two ways: through advertised and non-advertised processes. If they come in through an advertised process, with few exceptions, they must come in through the automated system at the Public Service Commission and the jobs must be posted on the jobs website. That is 72 per cent of the processes. The remaining 28 per cent are the non-advertised processes, and they can occur for many different reasons.
I have made it clear that I prefer advertised to non-advertised processes. There are good reasons why we could have non-advertised processes. I am worried about what that population looks like because I have no good number for that population. We are looking at ways to obtain a better number for that population at the current time. There are some things that we can potentially do.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that these positions are some of the short-term contracts and those kinds of issues?
Ms. Barrados: No.
The Chair: Are these full-time, continuing jobs?
Ms. Barrados: They could be full-time or term jobs. The cases where I think it makes sense to use an unadvertised process is, for example, if someone is looking for a highly specialized individual with particular background and experience, they know there are not many of these people in the country and they find someone who meets their qualifications. If they ran a competitive process for this person, they know they would not find any others. They may have tried to run a competitive process. It would make sense to hire someone like this unadvertised.
The Chair: Part of the dilemma that we have heard in the past and certainly I hear in other fora is that the manager will say: I cannot find anyone; the only person to do this job is candidate A. The manager happens to know candidate A and has worked with this person before.
By the time the manager has finished, there is no one but candidate A to fill the job. That standard is not an objective one; it is subjective by then. How will you intervene? I believe there are jobs where we need to find a specific person to hire, but often, is the reason only that the manager wishes to hire someone the manager knows, as opposed to conducting a full canvass of candidates available?
Ms. Barrados: It is a concern. At the commission, we require that every department has a policy that states the circumstance under which non-advertised jobs are allowed. In all our audits, we looked at appointments and we look specifically at where there are issues. We consistently find issues with the non-advertised jobs. Mostly, they do not clearly explain why they followed or did not follow the policy, or there is no clear documentation to explain it.
This area is one where we have continually reminded people that they have this possibility but it must be clearly documented, and we have continually identified this area in our audits.
Senator Jaffer: Before I ask my question, I need some clarification in the remarks that you made. On page 1, you said, "a more representative public service." How do you define that term? What does it mean? What does it look like?
Ms. Barrados: Simply put, I want to see a public service that reflects the population of the country. One of the ways we accomplish that goal in terms of establishing a benchmark is to try and develop workforce availability numbers, and try to ensure that our public service reflects what is defined in the workforce availability numbers. That is a benchmark in terms of the workforce pools we can draw from. I want to see a public service that is similar to those numbers; one that lines up.
Senator Jaffer: On page 4, you talk about visible minorities with Canadian citizenship. I spoke to you before we started. My understanding was that to have jobs in the Public Service Commission they must be Canadian citizens.
Ms. Barrados: The legislation says, "Preference to . . . Canadian citizens," which means that if we cannot fill the job with a Canadian citizen we can hire someone who is not a Canadian citizen, but we must give preference to a Canadian citizen, and that preference is in the statute.
Senator Jaffer: On page 5, I know that you had mentioned the figure of 27 there the last time you were in front of us. If I remember correctly, there were 41 in the pool, and 27 were hired. Do you know how many executive positions exist in the Public Service Commission?
Ms. Barrados: I will come back to you with the exact number but about 4,000, and that is for the whole government.
Senator Jaffer: I understand. Am I correct in saying that 27 additional positions were created, or are there 27 executive positions of the 4,000 that are visible minorities?
Ms. Barrados: No, the number who are visible minorities is higher than 27. In the discussions with this committee, my concern has been has been the numbers coming into executive positions. They enter at the EX-1 level. There are about 2,000 in EX-1, and I wanted more coming in to the public service. We had a significant increase by creating that pool. We had a flow of visible minorities coming in, and then we added another group. This group is added to the pool.
Senator Jaffer: I understand. These are newcomers and not part of the pool. They are at the entry level.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, they are entering into the executive group.
Senator Jaffer: You may not be able to tell me this today and I understand that, but how many visible minorities are in the 4,000 executive positions?
Ms. Barrados: My numbers are failing me again because my story to you in the statement was the rate of hiring. The numbers I relied on to describe how things are were off significantly. We have done much better by almost twice what we had measured, so we have a measurement problem.
I can give you the number — and I will send it to the committee — based on the old way, the question mark way. I know for sure those additions we were putting in, so we are adding significant numbers into the pool, but I can also tell you that I am worried that we do not have the numbers in the executive group. We are bringing them in at the bottom. We need representation all the way up the hierarchy.
Senator Jaffer: I have questions about the "Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service" initiative you talked about before when you were here. I may not be quoting you correctly, but the enthusiasm on that initiative had not dissipated but it was not as high. You had hoped that after the census report, perhaps we could rekindle that enthusiasm. What is happening now? Is Embracing Change over? Have we moved on from there?
Ms. Barrados: When I was here, I was reacting to the number that I am telling you today I have discovered is not a good number. I was not happy to see such a low rate of new hires. I spoke here about it; we had media coverage on it; and I talked a lot within the government. Everyone became involved in doing better. We had a strong commitment from the Clerk of the Privy Council. He required the hiring plans to have these elements in the planning process. The area has had a lot of focus and effort has been made. The work of this committee helps a lot because people pay attention.
That effort was taking place, and at the same time I realized I had a measurement problem. We showed an improvement in what we were measuring over that period. My numbers were not good when I came to the committee before. At that time, there was not that much discussion about it and commitment to it. I think we see that commitment now in the public service. There is a strong commitment. As I mentioned, Morris Rosenberg, the deputy minister champion, is highly committed and energetic on this issue.
Senator Jaffer: Is one in five still the target?
Ms. Barrados: That is a good question. I was afraid someone would ask that. The last time I was here, I worried about whether one in five was correct. I commissioned Statistics Canada to prepare new projections for me. We completed all that work and then we found the numbers were not right. If assumptions about the existing rate of hiring are not right, then projections will not be right.
I am pleased at the rate at which we are hiring now. I worry about the rest of the numbers. To answer you, I really cannot answer at this point.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Barrados, last week we were not here and, unfortunately, I took work home with me. I studied your reports and everything carefully. I wish I had not taken work home with me. This comment is not a criticism of you because it is not about your work. The problem is systemic and represents the work we must do. From what I understand, the Public Service Commission must be more representative and one must hasten the progress in closing the gap.
I look at all the years you have come before us and said, there is this gap and you will do more study, and this gap, and you will do more study, and so on. When do the studies stop and when do we start doing the job?
Ms. Barrados: I wish that as part of your homework you could have had these new numbers with you.
Senator Jaffer: I did not have them.
Ms. Barrados: No, I was waiting to come to the committee to explain this problem.
Senator Jaffer: I wish I had them with me.
Ms. Barrados: I think we are doing better. There has been a lot of effort behind it. We have persisted in developing the pools to the point where we are making appointments. Is the gap completely closed? I am not sure of my numbers, but I do not think so. I think we still have work to do, but I think we are doing much better than I told the committee before.
Senator Jaffer: I will not hold you to the numbers the next time you are here, but what are they? What are the numbers of the visible minorities in our country now?
Ms. Barrados: The problem is that we are talking about two numbers. We are talking about one number that says how many visible minorities we have in government today. If I took a picture today, how many will I have? I am not so sure about that number. That is not a good answer, but I am not so sure about that number because of the way we have been collecting the data.
Senator Jaffer: I understand.
Ms. Barrados: The other number is how many are coming into the public service. We know a lot are coming in. I can tell you about the ones coming in. For the ones coming in, that number is much better than in the past. I am much more optimistic because the rate at which we are bringing them in is almost double what I said before.
Senator Jaffer: What is the number?
Senator Nancy Ruth: They are all qualified?
Ms. Barrados: They are all qualified. The last time I was before this committee, I talked about 8.7 per cent as the rate at which they were coming in. Of all the hires, 8.7 per cent were visible minorities. In 2007-08, 17.3 per cent were visible minorities of those advertised processes. That improvement is significant, but it is an artifact of how we were measuring as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was interested in your 30 qualified, visible-minority candidates for EX-1 level, and it is neat that you were hustling the deputies to hire them. Do we know who those 30 candidates are in terms of gender, disability, race or things like that?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, we do, but I do not have those numbers with me. We can send them to you. The commission ran that pool. We had many applicants. This time, we asked for bilingual people because in the last pool we ran, we did not place them all because people were not bilingual or not mobile. We asked for bilingual people and people who were mobile. We still had about 700 applications and we have 30 highly qualified people. I cannot tell you about gender, but we will come back and tell you.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How many applied?
Ms. Barrados: 700.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Out of that 700, you culled 30?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, the bar is high. We expect them to be picked up quickly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I remember you testified before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance a year or two ago on the same question from Senator Andreychuk about visible minorities having one interview but not a second or third. This kind of discrimination was taking place. What changes have happened in the last two years, if any?
Ms. Barrados: I have looked more at some of this issue as well. We have been struggling to make the whole story fit. I think we are beginning to have the whole story.
Without a doubt, visible minorities apply much more. They are more interested in public service. They apply three times as often as non-visible minorities.
A lot of the work we did was on the applications. If I look at individuals, we now find, in this context, that there is some drop-off but not as much. It is really because they apply so many times, so they will not go to a number of the processes if they are in another process.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Who knows?
Ms. Barrados: We are persistent. I hope to have all this information together for my next annual report so I can say we turned it upside down several different ways and this is our story.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you, Ms. Barrados, for an excellent presentation, and to Mr. Lemaire and Ms. Green.
The raw percentage of visible minorities tells us only that there are X numbers within the civil service who are visible minorities. Those numbers do not tell us to what extent the visible minorities are proportionately represented all the way up the strata, including the executive level. It seems to me that the only way we can make any reasonable comparison or determine to what extent there is progress in hiring is if we have the statistics that tell us at what levels these people are being hired.
Since my mouth is open, I will ask a second question not related to the first. Of the 30 that you identified, and about which you wrote to department heads telling them that these people were executive-level, how many were hired?
Ms. Barrados: In answer to the first question about the levels at which people are being hired, by and large the public service tends to hire at the bottom. They hire at the more junior levels. People come into the public service and stay for their careers in the public service. There is not much hiring at middle and higher levels. There is some hiring, but the large numbers come in towards the bottom and stay for their career.
If we took that snapshot today, my number, which I have a big question mark around, is about 10 per cent. I understand your question to be, how they are distributed in the hierarchy.
Senator Goldstein: Yes.
Ms. Barrados: We can give you that detail as long as you understand that I have a question mark about that number; I think it is a low estimate. There is a problem with distribution, but we can send the committee that number.
Senator Goldstein: Is that not the problem that we must deal with, the distribution problem?
Ms. Barrados: I think it is an issue that the committee should look at. That is why we put that special effort into creating pools of people who were ready for executive positions and placing them in those positions.
With respect to your second question about how many have been hired out of the 30, I sent a letter out two weeks ago and 6 out of the 30 are already gone.
Senator Goldstein: Very nice.
Senator Jaffer: I want a clarification in relation to your discussion with Senator Goldstein.
When people are hired at the bottom in the Public Service Commission, normally they do not stay at the bottom; they rise. Can you explain that process? Is part of the issue that a lot of visible minorities are not promoted within the Public Service Commission? Is that the problem?
Ms. Barrados: That is a fair question, a question to look at. I can see that we are bringing visible minorities in. That is step one. However, of course they must rise throughout the hierarchy. They must be given opportunities to move.
The process in the government is one of competition. Jobs are posted, there is a competitive process, but there are even more unadvertised processes within the government than there are outside. There are many non-advertised processes as well, which a lot of public servants are not happy about. That is a good question, and I think it is a good area to examine.
Senator Martin: I am new to this committee, so if I am being redundant, I apologize.
In understanding that we clearly have two official languages, as a British Columbian and an anglophone, when we talk about bilingualism in British Columbia, although French is very much alive and there is a healthy francophone community, bilingualism can mean one speaks English and Mandarin, or English and Punjabi.
I am curious to know the statistics, province by province; how many British Columbians are able to secure successfully some of the higher level positions? How much does bilingualism, being able to speak both French and English, determine one's advancement? Obviously, bilingualism is a huge determinant, as you said.
In British Columbia, it is important to communicate with the Ministry of Education in ensuring that parents and students are aware of the importance of the second language. A few years back, seven heritage languages were taught in British Columbian schools. French is taught up to grade 7 or grade 8 in many districts, and then at grade 8 or grade 9, students have a choice of electives. There are many: German, Spanish, French, Italian and Korean. I am curious to know how many British Columbians are in those positions.
Ms. Barrados: Maybe my colleagues can tell me if I can provide the answer to how many British Columbians are in those positions. That information is a bit of a problem because people tend to move. Are you a British Columbian, or are Senator Andreychuk and I the only Saskatchewanians?
We have a series of statutes that define how we expect the public service to operate, and we have a requirement for official languages. It is a statutory requirement, which states that we provide service to the public in their language of choice between the two official languages or that we are able to supervise staff in either one of the official languages.
We, at the Public Service Commission, ensure when giving directions and setting policy requirements that official language requirements are one of the merit elements. In other words, language is one of the requirements of the merit test.
Language requirement is set by the level and type of job. For entry level positions, the requirements are not that high. Many opportunities for entry level positions do not require French. There is a tremendous opportunity in the public service to learn French when they are in the public service. There is no doubt that for the senior jobs, if they supervise staff or provide service in a bilingual area, if they want a senior position in the public service, they require the ability to use both official languages.
I agree with you that it may not be a message that we provide strongly enough to students across the country. You might want to have a conversation with the Commissioner of Official Languages because he is passionate about that subject.
Senator Martin: The reason I pointed out this situation is, if we look at visible minorities in a province like British Columbia, which is far away and close to the Pacific Rim, which is a focus, to increase the involvement of visible minorities in the public sector, this would be one way to educate and to encourage people to plan long term about the importance of bilingualism. That job is not only for government, such as in your position, but for many of the community groups and the Ministry of Education as well.
Senator Brazeau: Ms. Barrados, thank you for your presentation and for coming at this fine time of day.
I commend you for the work you are doing. In terms of anecdotal evidence that I have received, and which has been relayed to me, individuals and minority groups, including Aboriginal Peoples, are much more capable of accessing jobs within the public service. For those currently holding executive positions, the door has swung open in terms of opportunity and access. However, there is still work to do, as you correctly mentioned a while ago.
I have an issue with one of the current practices. When an Aboriginal person applies to the public service, they are asked to self-identify as an Aboriginal person. I have seen situations personally where clearly non-Aboriginal Peoples have self-identified on an application and have been successful in gaining employment. Sure, that boosts the Aboriginal numbers in the public service, but there are situations — and I know they are not excessive, but still they happen — where non-Aboriginal Peoples self-identify and hold jobs that Aboriginal Peoples themselves should hold.
Is the Public Service Commission looking into this issue, or has it looked into this issue and, at any point, will there be a more rigorous test to determine with certainty if an applicant is Aboriginal or not?
Ms. Barrados: For the other members of the committee, in the case of Aboriginal hiring, there are two issues. One is employment equity and workforce availability where, overall, the numbers look reasonable. Also, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has made a commitment to have 50 per cent of their hiring from Aboriginal people as part of a human rights settlement. There is real pressure to try to increase the numbers of Aboriginal people in the public service.
The comment you made about having some kind of certainty that those who self-declare are who they claim to be is something that has been raised with me a number of times. That certainty becomes difficult where there is no clear way to identify status. If they are a status First Nations Aboriginal, it is clear; they have a card and a number. However, there are a lot of other instances where it is not clear, particularly for Metis people.
We have had discussions and consultations as to what else we can do to raise the bar in this hiring. The direction in which we are going is for some form of affirmation by the individual who claims a particular type of status, and for more clarity for the basis of that status claim.
We have had a fair bit of discussion within the public service with a number of Aboriginal groups. We are now preparing a proposal, and we will take that proposal around for more discussion to see if we can build some kind of consensus without creating a huge bureaucracy.
If we make it too difficult, we run into the problem of not hiring people in the jobs at a time when people need to be in those jobs. That is the process we are in. I would be happy to talk to you about where we are and what our thinking is on this issue.
Senator Brazeau: I am glad to know that you are at least discussing it. I do not think the issue is a major one, but I know it is happening. I have seen first hand, where individuals who are good friends of mine are clearly not Aboriginal and were successful into the self-identification process. The fact that the situation occurs has discouraged a lot of Aboriginal peoples from even attempting to apply. However, I am glad that steps are being taken to deal with this issue.
Senator Poy: Ms. Barrados, I think many of us around this table were as disappointed as you were with your old number of 8.7 per cent. What was the reason that you decided that those numbers were incorrect, and that there are new ways of arriving at the new percentages? Does the reason have anything to do with voluntary self-identification?
Ms. Barrados: The reason we started looking at other ways to measure the number is that, as the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to increase the number of new hires, and as I continually preached about this opportunity to have a more representative public service and to bring new people in since we had a lot of turnover renewal, there was this question of how we were doing with these new recruits. To arrive at a number quickly, we went the system of applications.
I have been talking for years about streamlining and automating the application system. We have been looking for resources and I have been receiving them. We have been making progress.
In 2005, when the new legislation came into force, we implemented the new system and the new requirements. From that point on, I had the ability to look at the applications and match them with appointments. Since that time, we now have a better data source, which is what people fill in on their application.
You raise a second issue, which is an issue this committee may want to pursue. It is the whole business of voluntary self-identification and a voluntary declaration on the application form.
We have been running on a system of voluntary self-identification. The numbers I have looked at vary by department on how rigorously people self-identify. I have been comparing the number from the automated system and the numbers in the departments.
Some departments are close. The voluntary self-identification number and the automated number are close. In other departments, there is a big gap. This variation tells me that some departments are more systematic about self-identification than others.
I have this problem of how the information is collected. There are other arguments that try to make a difference between the process of voluntary self-identification process and the process of self declaration on the application. My lawyers say both processes are voluntary and I need not make that distinction.
Other organizations like the Canadian Human Rights Commission are committed to the voluntary self-identification process by survey because everybody under their remit is doing it that way. There is an issue about the way these two numbers are collected.
Senator Poy: This question is a follow up to Senator Martin's problem with languages. I know we have two official languages, which are important for anyone coming into the public service. Have you ever had requirements in departments such as Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for other languages? If so, that means people must be fluent in at least a minimum of three, four or five languages to enter these departments and move up.
I have read a lot, particularly about our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in dealing with China — that few people in the department know Chinese. I am sure that situation happens in many other foreign countries. What are your language requirements in cases like that?
Ms. Barrados: As I understand the hiring practices at the Department of Foreign Affairs, the department has the same requirements for official languages — French and English. The merit criteria are what they must have, but under "asset," the department requires other languages. They use those criteria as part of their screening in the people they hire.
I had the good fortune to be in China recently, and the acting ambassador was fluent in Chinese and Mandarin.
Senator Poy: What about the ambassador?
Ms. Barrados: He was the acting ambassador. He was fluent in Mandarin and so were his two people the next level down. They were fluent enough to make presentations and have discussions.
Senator Poy: I personally have read a lot of complaints about the lack of knowledge and language is only in one aspect.
Going back to self-identification, I know it is difficult because a lot of people refuse to give that information. They say there is no such thing as a natural Canadian; everyone comes from somewhere. All of us come from somewhere and yet, many people refuse to identify. I wanted to make that comment.
Ms. Barrados: I have had those discussions and sometimes I become a little frustrated by this issue. I have an obligation in the Public Service Commission to identify barriers and work to remove those barriers. If I cannot measure the rate or identify the barrier, I have a hard time removing it.
I encourage people to identify unless they think there is no problem. However, I have difficulty with someone telling me there is a big problem but then not doing the identification.
The Chair: We advocate diversity and we have human rights laws, et cetera, to protect against certain types of discrimination, but not all types. Is it fair to say, against that backdrop, that the more we integrate people by saying that there are varieties of Canadians and differences of behaviour, culture, religion, et cetera, the more comfortable people will be at identifying themselves? That is one factor.
The other is, if we take into account that not all people self-identify, let us take the figures you are comfortable with — your 27 prequalified candidates — then, is it fair to say that we probably have more candidates that do not want to self-identify. The bottom line is 27, but we could have a few more in that group who may qualify under your terms as visible minorities but they chose not to qualify themselves in the public service that way. Can we take this number as a bottom line at least?
Ms. Barrados: I think I agree that the self-identification number is a bottom line. The application process is where I have higher numbers because people are more encouraged to apply. The system is automated and it takes candidates to each question. It is not a form they receive for which they may be required to perform extra work.
Therefore, I agree: The self-identification number is our bottom line. I am trying to obtain a more accurate number because I want to know what we should do to take corrective measures and action.
For me, one important thing in all of this issue is that we, as a society, continue to pride ourselves on our diversity and that individuals who come from diverse backgrounds continue to be proud of their background; that there is pride and comfort in who they are and what they can contribute to Canadian society.
The Chair: Perhaps I will make this comment for Senator Poy, or maybe I make it because of the lateness of the hour. At one point in Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I know that if people came from certain countries where we had certain difficulties, the department did not want to place people because they may have been susceptible to influences on relatives living there, et cetera. We have gone a long way to say that, if they come from some of those countries, they are an asset within DFAIT. However, it took an understanding and a lot of multiculturalism within Canada to arrive at that point.
That is why I was making a point about diversity. Now we reach out and say that, if you are of a Chinese background, you understand the culture and have the language — but not always if you are Canadian — these qualities are now assets as opposed to impediments.
I hope that the Public Service Commission of Canada is also taking every opportunity to point out that being bilingual or having multicultural background are all assets that we should all strive for, rather than looking at them as impediments. We share that job with the Public Service Commission of Canada.
Ms. Barrados: The way we operate now under the new legislative frame, the employer sets the requirements. It is up to the Department of Foreign Affairs to say, we are looking for these things. We will make sure the information goes out to the public and, if the department wants us to help them recruit these people, we will do that as well.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: When we talk about barriers to reaching our goals, there are different stages to go through in order for minorities to access high-level jobs. Is it possible that managers are the main barrier to reaching employment equity targets in the public service? Don't you think it would be reasonable to include employment equity in the criteria for the annual performance evaluations of managers? If a manager does not meet his or her objectives, you should be able to make him or her understand that he or she did not reach the expected level of performance. What would be the best way to apply this in the case of managers?
Ms. Barrados: We have different applications and approaches. First, we need much more information, and I think we now have it. We are now required to better plan our human resources. The Clerk of the Privy Council requires each department to have a human resource plan including representation rates.
We also have the Management Accountability Framework, or MAF, where representation rates are one of the indicators for deputy ministers. If this factor is considered for deputy ministers, it is certainly reflected at other departmental levels.
At the Public Service Commission of Canada, we are producing an annual report on the steps departments, deputy heads and other managers have taken to improve their representation rates. Moreover, the process the Clerk of the Privy Council is using has an impact on incentive pay.
Senator Pépin: Definitely. Thus if they meet their targets, they can have a bonus?
Ms. Barrados: This is one of many elements that are taken into account.
Senator Pépin: This will increase motivation. All right.
Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: Also, under the Employment Equity Act, each department must have an employment equity plan if there are gaps. We receive data on occupational groups and labour market availability by type of occupation or class of employment. If there are gaps, the department concerned must produce a plan identifying how they intend to reduce those differences.
A plan must be submitted and if there are no gaps, it is all right. However, if there are gaps, the department must submit a plan explaining how they intend to reduce them.
Senator Pépin: Yes, there are definitely gaps considering you told us that you have already improved the situation.
Mr. Lemaire: For instance, in the case of the Public Service Commission of Canada, there are occupational groups with absolutely no gaps. Globally, the rates are good. However, in more specialized groups, like information management, information technology or finance, some employment equity groups are underrepresented. We consider each case and try to find ways to reduce the gaps. So, on the whole, things look pretty good but, at the subgroup level, there are cases where we have to intervene and ask managers about their intention to fill the positions. Then we consider the recruitment and staffing strategy. We do not expect things to be done overnight but we do follow up these cases.
Ms. Barrados: And this applies to all four employment equity groups.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Last week, I met with a number of visible minorities in my province who work for the government. One of the findings is anecdotal: People said they did not want to s elf-identify because it would hurt their promotion chances because it would be seen as trying to obtain the job because they were a minority. The people I spoke to are reluctant to use their minority status. I share with you what I heard from a few people.
The other thing I point out is that French is not readily available in B.C. I am having a senior moment and I forget the name of the legislation but, when there was legislation last year, I think, regarding needing a certain level of French, many visible minorities told me that they will never be able to compete for national jobs because they cannot obtain French training. I understand — and I am sure you understand, Ms. Barrados — that, if they were in Ottawa, they could receive the nine months of French training fairly easily. If that is untrue, I stand to be corrected. However, I have spoken to numerous people in B.C. and they feel it is virtually impossible to have the French training. It is not at the same level, so it is a real barrier for visible minorities.
As we know, if they compete and they do not have the French capability, they will not win the job. If there is one change to push for, it is to ensure French is offered to people right across the country.
I have many, many questions but I also see the time and my colleagues' faces. I would like your permission and that of the chair to table the questions and give the witnesses a copy. The questions are more technical and, at your leisure, please provide answers to them.
The Chair: We can table the questions with the clerk and then have them translated and sent out.
As you know, we sit at a difficult time, going late into the evening. I think we have exhausted the questions.
Senator Goldstein: May I have a last question?
The Chair: Yes, with the indulgence of all your colleagues.
Senator Goldstein: Everyone is hungry and has travelled today.
I will ask you a loaded question. Have you considered the possibility of quotas?
Ms. Barrados: The question is an interesting one. The approach we take now is to set a target or benchmark. We arrive at that number by establishing the workforce availability number. That provides the proportion in the workforce and the number we strive for. At various other times, there has been an effort to say that to reach the current rate, we need to hire one in five or however they may choose to calculate it. That has been working for us. We need to improve our numbers and push the plans. We seem to be making progress.
If we were not making progress, then I would say we have to start looking at alternate means. If we keep on this track and this committee keeps pushing, we seem to be making headway.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am opposed to quotas.
Senator Goldstein: I am opposed to quotas, too. However, they are an alternative if we are in a crisis.
The Chair: Someone commented about having a seniors' moment. Respecting our human rights, I do not know if we should refer to them as seniors' moments. Some of us are older than Senator Jaffer. However, I am old enough to remember that this debate about quotas arises approximately every decade. When the targeted groups were put in place, there were discussions about methods and options for making the public service representative. Whether it is in political parties or the Public Service Commission, targets are an ongoing debate. However, they are not currently on the table within the Public Service Commission. Perhaps you will raise the issue, but the rest have not.
Thank you for bringing new information to us. It is helpful as we prepare our next report. You can respond to any further questions that we will ask. We thank you for being here at this late hour. This time has been allotted to us. We appreciate that you came with your officials.
Before I end, senators, we discussed our priorities and have made decisions. We have now been given, not a government bill — Bill C-10 was not referred to us — but subject matter to study from the bill, which puts the study into a discretionary category in this committee. We were given a time limit of June 11, as have other committees. Your steering committee will meet on Thursday to look at this reference. Perhaps next Monday, we could have some discussion on the priority of this subject matter and how we handle this it in our work plan.
How we undertake that work will determine where we slot the rest of the work. Do we place it on our priority list after other topics, or do we give it accelerated priority? The date they gave us to report back is an indication to us. However, if we want to handle it differently, it is this committee's responsibility to determine how we approach the subject matter. The steering committee will take the first crack at it, if I can call it that, but the full committee needs to discuss how we will approach that study. I give you warning to think about it. We will not discuss it this evening. It is a head's up for you to reflect upon.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If the bill was passed in the Senate and has received Royal Assent, why are we studying anything in it?
The Chair: Can you discuss that question with the leadership? We are not studying the bill. We were asked to study the subject matter.
(The committee adjourned.)