Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 8, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 6:32 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; to examine labour market outcomes for minority groups in the private sector; and to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alias, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: United Nations Human Rights Council — Universal Periodic Review).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is here this evening to continue our study on 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.
We had the Department of Justice appear some months ago. Since that appearance, changes have occurred within the department and elsewhere. A letter was dispatched to my office and the clerk's office, but somewhere in the postal system it did not get into the right hands. I believe you all received a copy of a letter today. If there are questions arising out of that, we may have to call the department back or do it by written submissions.
However, we will see how we get along this evening with the evidence. Mr. Sims knows about the difficulty and has been looking into it. I am sure he will deal with it.
We have from the Department of Justice Canada, Mr. John Sims, Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General of Canada; Ms. Donna Miller, Associate Deputy Minister; and Ms. Joan Pratt, Acting Director General, Human Resources and Professional Development Directorate.
I believe Mr. Sims will be making introductory remarks before he takes questions. You might refer to your letter and the attachment, which I think is important. Mr. Sims, the floor is yours.
John Sims, Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice Canada: You may recall that I last appeared before you on March 31 of this year when we discussed the Universal Periodic Review. I am pleased to have a chance to come back tonight to discuss an important topic that has captured the attention of the senior leadership at the Department of Justice Canada, namely the need to support a diverse and inclusive workplace.
I applaud the committee's efforts in continuing your study of issues of discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service. Since we last appeared on this issue before your committee in December 2007, the department has made significant strides in continuing to build such a diverse and inclusive workplace.
As the chair indicated, I had written a letter that laid out some of what I would like to cover tonight. I will describe what is in the letter drawing your attention to two pages. We will not have a chance to go through it now. The bottom of page 2 and continuing onto page 3 lays out overall representation figures of the department from the perspective of designated group members. We address promotion statistics for last year in the designated groups on page three. It includes a point I will come back to which is that we have the highest annual promotion rate ever achieved for visible minorities at the LA2B level. That is the first management level in the law stream.
Data is also included on this page for overall representation in the senior cadre of the department. That is the block of numbers in the middle of the page beginning ``as of March 31, 2009, there were 763 lawyers.'' The data that follows lays out the leadership of the department in the law and EX streams followed by figures on recruitment, which I will touch upon briefly in my opening remarks. The rest of the letter addresses a number of activities we undertook qualitatively and quantitatively to give active voice to our commitment to make the Department of Justice Canada a department committed to a diverse and inclusive workplace.
I have also tabled with the committee an opening statement in both official languages. I do not propose to read it all. Instead, I would like to highlight a few salient points and save more time for questioning by the committee.
The chair mentioned my two fellow witnesses tonight, Donna Miller and Joan Pratt. Each of these colleagues has a vital role in the department's comprehensive employment equity governance structure. The governance structure is not some bureaucratic entity. It is vital to how we manage employment equity together with our colleagues in the department. The structure is comprised of dedicated senior level champions for each designated group, active advisory committees, an employment equity steering committee chaired by Ms. Miller and a dedicated employment equity unit. Employment equity coordinators are in each regional office falling under the auspices of the Human Resources Professional Development Directorate.
[Translation]
The department's record with respect to employment equity and diversity has captured the committee's attention a number of times, beginning with the department's appearance in December 2007, and most recently raised by Michelle d'Auray, Chief, Human Resources Directorate of the Treasury Board Secretariat. While some of the references to the department have been critical, and some based on misunderstandings of the organizational structure of the department, I wholeheartedly support the underlying premise with which they were raised — namely that, as a department and a public service, we must fully embrace inclusive and diverse workplaces.
Following the appearance of Justice officials in December 2007, and the appearance of former Justice lawyer Mark Persaud before this committee on February 4, 2008, the Department of Justice embarked on some frank discussions about the state of diversity and equity in our workplace. From those discussions, and the ongoing dialogue with the employment equity advisory committees in the department, I have taken away many lessons.
[English]
First, strong leadership is essential to culture change — a point emphasized by Senator Oliver when he came to speak to us recently in the department. Second, an open and constructive dialogue about employment equity is essential to create a truly inclusive workplace. Third, members of the employment equity groups are a valuable resource that offer a diversity of perspectives and experiences. Fourth, thoughtful employment equity reports and plans are good but taking action is essential to implement them. Fifth, all departmental employees led by senior managers must continue in a robust way to address and prevent racism, and foster inclusiveness. Sixth, the work of the department would be better informed by a senior management group that is more diverse and, as such, as a matter of priority, under-representation of designated groups at senior levels must be addressed.
Building on these lessons learned, I am pleased to report to you today on our progress since our last appearance. Let me start by saying that the department is unique compared with other departments across the public service in that our senior leadership is primarily comprised of approximately 763 lawyers who are in the Law Group. We have relatively few executives, or EXs, numbering 35. The EXs are mainly responsible for the management of corporate functions and some programs. With this in mind, many of our efforts over the past year focused on addressing the under representation of employment equity members in the Law Group.
As you will see from the copy of our Employment Equity progress report, our quantitative results from this past year have been extremely promising. These results are in part attributable to the focused efforts that I asked my direct reports to undertake in the performance management process this year. Recruitment rates during this time frame significantly exceeded workforce availability for visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples and exceeded for persons with disabilities. In fact, our recruitment rate for visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the Law Group was twice as high as the availability rate.
We have made promising inroads on promotions and acting opportunities for designated group members into senior positions of the Law Group. In particular, we achieved the highest annual promotion rate ever for visible minorities at the LA-2B level, which is the first level of management within the LA Group.
In terms of progressing on the other more qualitative lessons learned, in the past year we have done several important things:
[Translation]
Given that we have described those activities in detail in our report, I will remind you of the broad themes only. First, we have launched a department-wide mentoring program. We provide mandatory diversity training for managers. We have broadened the scope of the talent management process and we have approved the launch of the second cohort of the Justice Leaders of Tomorrow program. We have launched a number of new tools.
[English]
At the same time, we worked on acquiring a better understanding of our current workforce representation by conducting employee workforce surveys and launching a self-identification campaign across the department. This past year has presented the leadership of the department with an enormous opportunity to communicate our commitment and recognition of the need for a diverse and inclusive workplace. At every opportunity, senior managers discussed what we were trying to achieve with regard to a diverse workforce. When we embark on a new initiative or project, we ask how it will affect or integrate with our Employment Equity goals, and we consult with our active employment equity advisory committees. These types of discussions are essential if we are to achieve real cultural change.
As a concrete example of this continuing commitment to awareness-raising within the department, you might be interested to know that we were extremely pleased that Senator Donald Oliver agreed to speak to us on diversity at a departmental management meeting in April of this year. His message, stressing the imperative of strong leadership in creating an inclusive and diverse workplace, resonated with the department's senior leaders.
Our efforts have resulted in greater awareness of employment equity objectives at all levels in the department; a strengthened commitment to increasing representation at senior levels; and a shared interest in working together to ensure that we create and sustain a departmental culture that values diversity; and encouraging numerical progress. We recognize that true culture change requires continuous learning, persistent efforts and strong leadership from the top. We can assure you that we remain strongly committed to maintaining our momentum toward achieving the ultimate goal of a genuinely inclusive and diverse workplace.
I thank you, senators, for offering us an opportunity to appear before your committee. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sims. When Mr. Persaud came before this committee, it was on the understanding that he would speak to the general issue of the four target groups to which we referred. In fact, he talked about a person within the department, not necessarily himself, and the discrimination that person encountered. I believe that it led to what you were talking about. Did you change directions after the committee met, which engendered the publicity, or did you intensify what you were already doing with the stresses you pointed out on the senior leadership?
Mr. Sims: Madam Chair, I would say that we intensified the direction, but that was an enormous change. I became involved personally in numerous conversations with individuals from designated groups within the department, as did Ms. Miller and Ms. Pratt.
As I alluded to in my statement, we had frank conversations with the advisory groups. We built on what was already there. If we had not had good relationships with these advisory groups and knowledgeable colleagues in the department, who were prepared to talk to us and provide advice, it would have been a rocky few months. As it was, we had strong conversations and from that we took some of the initiatives that are described in our report, in my letter and in my opening statement. It was a continuation and an intensification, but the degree of senior leadership involvement changed dramatically. That was a large part of the change we witnessed this past year.
The Chair: It would be fair to say that we grabbed your attention.
Mr. Sims: You certainly did, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You have 35EXs. They could come from anywhere within the system. For example, the director of human resources could come from other than the department. Is that correct?
Mr. Sims: Yes.
The Chair: Do the 700-plus lawyers come in and out of the system? Do you normally hire them at an entry level and they work their way up through the department or are you reaching out to get specific skills in the Department of Justice outside of that career path?
We have changed so much in how we operate governments. With all the new fields and technologies, it requires a particular legal expertise, whether it is terrorism, technologies or communications, et cetera. Are you reaching out or is it a progression up through the department?
Mr. Sims: It is both. Many people enter the Department of Justice at a junior level and spend their career in the department. However, many talented justice colleagues leave because they get promoted outside the department to other jobs or just leave for other challenges. We do recruit from the outside, but a relatively small percentage of people come from the outside once we get beyond the entry level.
We are very aware that sometimes we should make a concerted effort to reach out to get special talents or to fill a special need that we may have. We certainly look outside. Ms. Miller is a perfect example of someone we recruited at mid-stage in her career. Thank goodness she accepted the offer to come. She had a very senior position in the Government of Manitoba, but we persuaded her to join us mid-career and we are obviously the better for that. There are notable examples in the department where we do bring people in mid-career and more senior.
The Chair: The 700-plus lawyers do not include lawyers that are in other departments, is that correct?
Mr. Sims: By and large, all legal services to the Government of Canada are provided by the Department of Justice. It is not 100 per cent. Tribunals, for example, have their own separate lawyers. There are separate lawyers connected to the Canadian Forces, the Judge Advocate General.
The Chair: I am thinking of Foreign Affairs and Aboriginal.
Mr. Sims: The lawyers who work for Aboriginal work for Justice.
The Chair: All of them do, okay.
Mr. Sims: On the other example you mentioned, at Foreign Affairs, it is split. Some of the lawyers there are from Foreign Affairs and some are from Justice, but the only major exceptions are Foreign Affairs, JAG and the tribunals. I think that is about it.
Senator Jaffer: I want to commend you for the steps you have taken. I believe you have come a long way. I see you as being in charge of the department, not the minister, when it comes to this issue. We have an independent Department of Justice, I believe.
One of the things that you have written is that you want a fair and welcoming environment in your department. Can you describe what you mean by that?
Mr. Sims: We know that if we have a department that has only the values of white men, it will not be a welcoming environment for others — women, to take a simple example. That is a change that the public service and the workplace generally started to encounter 20 years ago. It will not necessarily be a welcoming place for newcomers to Canada. It will perhaps not be a welcoming place for Aboriginal colleagues and so on.
We need to be sensitive to other values, other perspectives, and to find a way to encourage all people who want to work in the department to bring what they can and contribute to the solution of problems and the bringing of fresh ideas and perspectives. That is what I am trying to get at.
Senator Jaffer: I read what Mr. Persaud had to say. He did say that the department sucked life out of him. When he came here, he spoke to us about that. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Persaud again about his perspective and what he saw happen to him in the department?
Mr. Sims: No, senator; I never did speak to Mr. Persaud. I read what he said, of course. Then there began a conversation with many of my colleagues within the department, but I never spoke directly to Mr. Persaud.
Senator Jaffer: I read in the paper that you had some anti-racism training. One must not accept everything that is in the paper, but you have had anti-racism training and you will have 22 weekend workshops for managers on anti- racism, is that correct?
Mr. Sims: Yes. Indeed, the most senior leaders of the department have already undergone a diversity workshop, led by Carl Taylor, back in December. The diversity training is one of several things we are trying to do to raise awareness. I can elaborate on some of that, but that is an important part of it.
We ran a pilot to test it and now it is starting to roll out across the department, beginning last month. It will take two or three years to cover everyone we want to reach, but we are investing heavily in it. We think it will pay big dividends.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Sims, you wrote this letter to the Ottawa Citizen, which I am sure you know very well, in February, saying that we do not tolerate racism at the Department of Justice. Now you are having all this training. Since this letter, you found out things that had existed in your department and the department has had a growth process in the sense that things have changed. Would I be correct in saying that?
Mr. Sims: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: Are there things in this letter now you think perhaps you should not have written?
Mr. Sims: If I had to do it again, I would not write that letter. It was a growth experience. I am not being a Pollyanna to say, although I did not see it immediately, that great good came from that. I believe quite genuinely today that good came from that.
I met people, I have talked to people, I have heard things and I have learned things. I have said on occasion, for example, if I was outraged that people thought that we supported a culture of racism, so, too, colleagues were outraged to think that I might be so blind as to think that individual incidents of racism might not occur.
The Department of Justice is a microcosm of Canadian society. Things sometimes happen. That does not mean there is a culture of racism, but we must be robust in ensuring that things like that do not happen and perpetuate.
However, the good that has come of it is an amazing conversation, which is ongoing, with people who are dedicated to making the department a diverse and welcoming department. I think we have come a long way built on where we have before. We have taken, in response to the chair's opening statement, big strides this last year.
Senator Jaffer: I agree that there is not a culture of racism that exists in your department. I accept that, but do you think systemic discrimination exists in your department? In Canada, which has changed so much, you do not have minorities in senior positions. For example, South Asians have lived in Canada for over 100 years and you still have no one from that background in a senior position in my province. Do you think there has been systemic discrimination within the department?
Mr. Sims: When we took stock a year ago to decide what we would do to make a change — because we were all committed to making a change but we did not quite know how to do it — one thing we knew was there appeared to be a glass ceiling. We had not enough people making it through into the senior levels.
We had been stalled for some years. We were making promotions, but we could not make more promotions than we had people leaving, so we were stalled. We did not know why then and we do not quite know now. It could be for a number of reasons.
We made a major effort on all these kinds of things I am describing in the letter — diversity training, setting employment equity goals and commitments and accountabilities in the people who report to me, training ourselves with things like staffing. There is a program run by the Public Service Commission called the Objective Eye, which makes you aware of what might be hidden biases you have — everyone has, I guess — and to become sensitive to that. We tried on many fronts and, together, we are starting to see the breakthrough that we hoped for. We have had very encouraging results this year, the biggest ever promotion beyond that glass ceiling level.
We think we have some of the answers, although we would be the first to say that we do not think for a minute that we have all the answers. We read the deliberations of your committee with great interest because you have a lot of witnesses here who have a lot of good ideas. We are looking for good ideas but we think we are on the path.
Senator Jaffer: I have prepared something. I want to be fair to you and leave this with you. I am a visual person. I need to see things rather than read about them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your department has around 4,500 people?
Mr. Sims: That is about right.
Senator Jaffer: Of that number, 483 are visible minorities? You can give us this information later. I do not want to be unfair to you.
Mr. Sims: It must be higher than that because the total number of visible minorities in the department is 14 per cent. There are 683, I guess.
Senator Jaffer: Of that amount, 88 per cent are in the lowest two tiers; is that correct?
Mr. Sims: Well, two thirds of everyone is in the lower two tiers.
Senator Jaffer: Seventy-one per cent of the others; 88 per cent of the visible minorities are in the lowest. Those statistics come from figures that we have been provided; these are not my figures.
The Chair: For the record, you asked that a paper be circulated, Senator Jaffer. I am not sure where you got those figures.
Senator Jaffer: I prepared what we had received from the figures that we had — that is, until we were given this other paper — so that I could ask my questions quickly.
The Chair: This is from your own office, then.
Senator Jaffer: Yes; it is from my own office. It is from information that the Library of Parliament gave me which states that 88 per cent of the visible minority group are in the lowest two tiers, while it is 71 per cent of the other group. Is that correct?
Mr. Sims: I do not know.
Senator Jaffer: Can you find out and let us know? As of your testimony today, I think you said there is one EX now out of 35.
Mr. Sims: That is correct.
Senator Jaffer: There are no LA-3Cs out of the 11?
Mr. Sims: That is correct.
Senator Jaffer: Among senior general counsel, there are only two out of 64 visible minorities?
Mr. Sims: I will have to check; I do not know for sure.
Senator Jaffer: For general counsel, there are only seven out of 184?
Mr. Sims: I will have to check; I do not know.
Senator Jaffer: From first-line management, there is only one out of 22?
Mr. Sims: I cannot answer the questions the way that you have broken them down. I have the numbers that I gave you, which roll them up in a different way. In addition, there is the rate of change, which is a significant of factor that we have been trying to talk about.
Senator Jaffer: Can you put it for me like this so that I can understand it better?
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, I will ask Mr. Sims to take the paper that you have and address it in a written form. If you want to add the percentage of change, could you also tell us rate of change from what year or date to what year or date?
Senator Jaffer: In all of this, nothing comes through about the legal agents that you hire. I understand that the Department of Justice hires a lot of legal agents. The last time I asked this question, we were sent this huge thing on employment equity — if I can put my hands on it — where you gave an answer. Within these figures, I would like to know how you apply employment equity to all the legal agents that you hire. What progress are you making with that?
Donna Miller, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada: Perhaps I could answer that question.
The department has had a workplace equity policy for legal agents since 1996. As an interesting aside, the creation of the policy came out of the Bertha Wilson report which you may recall reported on gender equality in the legal profession.
As a result of this policy, every time the Department of Justice contracts with a legal agent, we make it a requirement that that law firm, first, support the workplace equity goals that we have within the department; and, second, that that support within the law firm be communicated to all employees. It is a way in which the department can have some impact on how employment equity rolls out with private law firms. That policy applies to all legal agents that the department retains and has retained since 1996.
Senator Jaffer: How do you know that they do it? Do you have any figures? In your contract, you have three lines as to employment equity requirements, but how do you supervise that? What figures do you collect? How do you know they are doing it? Where is the accountability on that?
Ms. Miller: Frankly, we do not monitor this. However, it is a fundamental term of the contract that we have with each legal agent that they will adhere to this condition as part and parcel of their agreement to act on behalf of the Attorney General. We count on the integrity of the law firms to ensure compliance with this fundamental term. That is the approach that we have taken.
The Chair: How do we, as the Government of Canada, employ these agents? I am about 30 years out of date, I will admit. Perhaps you can give me a written reply to that question.
Senator Jaffer: They gave it to us last time.
The Chair: I would like it in light of what we are talking about. That is why I wanted to pull that out. I would like a statement on exactly how you go about the process today.
Senator Jaffer: When you do that, please do not give us platitudes; give us exact examples.
The Chair: I want the policy first.
Senator Jaffer: It does not say much. It says exactly what she said.
The Chair: That is why I want today's policy statement, if I can get that. Thank you.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is nice to see the improvement of nearly 2.5 per cent. That is great. I believe it is important that the Department of Justice has a diverse workforce.
I am interested in the Auditor General's recent review of the implementation of gender-based analysis (GBA) in federal departments generally and in your department specifically. It reminds me that the department has a critical federal policy role with respect to equality and human rights. For instance, your department reviews all bills tabled before Parliament to determine whether they comply with the Charter, and particularly with sections 15 and 28. Could you tell me how that review is organized?
Ms. Miller: Women's representation in the Department of Justice is very significant.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I will stop you there. I do not know who it was, but I was in a committee a couple of years ago where they defended not specifically doing GBA by saying, ``We have over 50 per cent of women in the department. Therefore, we do not need to do it.'' This is not an answer that comforts me.
I would like you to tell me how you do this review and how it is organized.
Ms. Miller: I can provide you with some of the fundamentals on that. We would be happy to provide a more detailed response.
About 1.5 years ago, I appeared before a standing committee on gender-based analysis. As the senator has pointed out, the Department of Justice does Charter analysis of any government provision or proposal that is before the House of Commons.
We have what is called an integrated approach to gender-based analysis. By that, what we are saying is that it does not belong to any one unit within the Department of Justice Canada to conduct gender-based analysis. In fact, it is the responsibility and accountability of everyone across the department who is involved in the development of policy and the bringing of that policy to legislation or otherwise, who is accountable for ensuring that gender issues are considered in the context of the development of that policy.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If I may, the Auditor General says what you just said and then goes on to say that the department could not provide evidence that the analysis takes place.
Can you help us with this?
Maybe it is easier if I just put my whole deck of cards on the table for you. I come out of early 1980s Charter litigation stuff so it is of particular interest to me. I also have friends who used to do GBA in the Department of Justice until you sacked them, and so on and so forth, but that is neither here nor there.
In your hiring stuff, you have people who have come in after 2004, when you stopped doing the GBA training. How do these new members of your department get this training? How do they even know it is a factor in your department? Your department came out pretty badly in the Auditor General's report. How do diverse views, whether they are disabled or of different races who are women or men, participate in this GBA thing? Do you have particular recruiting objectives around people who are familiar with doing gender-based analysis in other departments when you transfer them in or recruit them from outside? The Auditor General says there has been no training since 2004 on GBA; there is no focal point for gender-based analysis at justice and there is no monitoring of what GBA has done.
How do you ensure that the department can even take into its full value the diversity of the people there are there? How do you apply this to law making?
The Chair: Senator Nancy Ruth, there are many questions there. Perhaps we should have the witnesses attempt to answer those questions.
Ms. Miller: Senator, I would start with the point that you raised about how we ensure that new recruits consider gender-based analysis in the context of policy development. On that question I would like the opportunity to provide further detail in a written response. However, on the issue of diversity, be it gender or race or persons with disabilities, is part and parcel of the orientation that the department provides for new employees. That is one point.
Second, as the deputy minister pointed out, there is a strong commitment by senior management to ensure, in the context of new recruits, that those recruits reflect as much as possible the diversity of Canadians.
You raised other issues and I would like, as I mentioned before, the opportunity to reply in writing to the questions that you have framed.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Part of my concern is if you do this in the orientation, what kind of ongoing support, resources, money, people, time, further training, makes that really stick? We do not do GBA in the Senate either so I know it is a tough wiggle to woggle but we have to keep trying.
Ms. Miller: I would add that as you are aware part of our role is to assess in the context of sections 15 and 28 of the Charter. It is part of our role to assess whether those provisions are challenged in the context of developing legal policy within the department on behalf of the Government of Canada. There is certainly a legal component with what I believe you are referencing.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I look forward to your written response.
Senator Ringuette: I have a follow up question to your previous answer in regard to contracting out. Could you provide the committee with a sample of your standard contract for legal counsel?
Ms. Miller: We will look into that and follow up.
Senator Ringuette: I am a little bit surprised that you have chosen the law group to report on primarily with respect to your targeting of minority group representation.
You are reporting on roughly 663 lawyers plus 35 EX employees, which is roughly 700 out of your 4,500. So it is only 18 per cent of your workforce that you have reported on in your presentation.
What is happening with the other 82 per cent in regards to distribution of gender and Aboriginal, disabled, visible minorities? Could you provide the committee with those answers?
Mr. Sims: I would be pleased to. The reason we were focusing on the senior levels was because the department is quite representative of the diverse groups at the lower levels. The sensitivity a year ago and for some time now has been that, although we recruit at much higher rates than workforce availability for all designated groups and the junior levels have many designated group members among them, not enough designated group members seem to be getting promotion to the senior ranks. The question was how come, what can we do about it, this seemed unacceptable. It is unacceptable. We need to get proper accountability at all levels so the focus was on the senior levels where there was underrepresentation. That is why we reported it in that fashion tonight, but the numbers are in our reports and we can get them out for you that we actually are quite representative at the entry levels and at the lower levels.
Senator Ringuette: A month ago Ms. Barrados, from the Public Service Commission, came in front of our Finance Committee and said that in her last annual report there was a major increase in unadvertised hiring. How much unadvertised hiring did you do in the last year?
Joan Pratt, Acting Director General, Human Resources and Professional Development Directorate, Department of Justice Canada: We would have to come back to the committee to report on that specifically. I would add that in terms of our departmental staffing accountabilities overall, which our deputy minister reports to the Public Service Commission on a yearly basis, we have about the same proportion of non-advertised processes as other departments in the public service.
As you know, this is a flexibility that is afforded by the Public Service Employment Act in terms of new delegated accountabilities, but in terms of specific numbers of non-advertised processes we would be pleased to report back on that.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to have the percentage of gender, Aboriginal, disabled, and visible minority.
How many casuals do you have in your department that would not be in the 4,500 numbers. I am referring to people who would be casual for three, four or five months, then laid off and rehired; three, four, five months, laid off, then rehired and so on. Who would these people be?
Ms. Pratt: As you know, casual employment is a mechanism of employment, once again, that the Public Service Employment Act made provision for.
Senator Ringuette: I am not asking for your excuse; I am asking for the numbers.
Ms. Pratt: I wanted to respond to your comment about hired and rehired. There is a limitation on hires and rehires of 90 days in one calendar year. In terms of the specific number of casuals in the Department of Justice, we would be pleased to provide that number the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Again, you will give us the numbers with regard to gender and so forth.
How many people do you employ via an employment agency other than the Public Service Commission?
Ms. Pratt: Are you asking for the actual number of contract persons hired by a temporary agency?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, and also I want the gender base and the distribution. They would not be in any statistics you would have because they are not ``employees'' of the department.
Ms. Pratt: You are absolutely correct; they are not employees, and we hire them through our contracting processes.
Senator Ringuette: When do you foresee that you will be able to provide the committee with all that information?
Ms. Pratt: We should be able to provide it in short order. The statistics should be readily available within the department.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Poy: Mr. Sims, you spoke about senior level diversity training and setting goals, and you said that you expect accountability.
How long has that been going on? Just over a year ago, Mr. Persaud appeared before this committee and said there were no proper opportunities for visible minorities to be promoted equitably and fairly. He quoted a friend, who is now a judge, who said, ``The Department of Justice is the most racist institution I have ever encountered.''
How long has diversity training been done?
Mr. Sims: We started diversity training a couple of years ago, but have revamped the program in the fashion that I described earlier in my testimony. We got advice from the advisory committees on the way to teach the curriculum content, have piloted it and have now started to roll it out.
This year, our processes have produced the greatest number ever of promotions of LA-2Bs, the first management level, and they are fair and equitable. It is certainly possible for a designated group member to have a good career in the Department of Justice and to rise into the senior ranks.
I cannot comment on the specifics of Mr. Persaud's testimony, but I can say that I believe the processes we have now and have had for some time are very fair.
Senator Poy: You said that in the last couple of years senior level executives have received diversity training. Is this a very recent phenomenon?
Mr. Sims: The chair asked whether there a sudden shift or whether this was an intensification of processes that were already in place, and I answered that it is an intensification.
We are devoting enormous energy, focus and senior level leadership to making the Department of Justice diverse, welcoming and equitable, but it did not start just 12 months ago. We are strengthening, reinforcing and trying to drive these values more deeply into the organization.
Senator Poy: How long is the training in the Justice Leaders of Tomorrow Program?
Mr. Sims: Our first program was a two-year pilot. We created this program on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for Visible Minorities. It is a wonderful idea. By design, half the first cohort were designated group members and half were not.
It is a two-year program that combines classroom learning, stretch assignments and so on. There is mentoring and on-the-ground, hands-on learning in a supportive environment as well as academic training in management, leadership and so on.
We have decided to do a second cohort, which we are just starting to get organized now. We will make some changes to the program, but the basic structure worked well the last time and we will repeat it.
Senator Poy: It started a year ago?
Mr. Sims: Two years ago.
Senator Poy: Have any of the visible minority individuals been promoted?
Mr. Sims: Yes.
Senator Poy: Would some of the individuals be afraid to be part of that program in case they do not have a chance to join?
Mr. Sims: I am not sure I understand your question. Most people who are offered a chance to participate jump at it, because it is seen as an amazing opportunity to get noticed, to be trained and to get exposure to all parts of the department. The problem is not that people do not want to join, it is that we can only take a very few people so far. It has been a huge success and is very popular with those who have had a chance to participate.
Senator Poy: How many do you take at a time?
Mr. Sims: We only took 20 the first time.
Have we changed the number?
Ms. Pratt: No. We will again be welcoming 20 new participants as Justice Leaders of Tomorrow, and we have made provision to make a couple of spots available to our colleague department, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: I refer to page three of the letter that you sent to Senator Andreychuk, our chair. When you say ``to March 31, 2009,'' you are clearly talking about the people you have hired, including persons with disabilities. There are 46 persons with disabilities at the moment, which is 6 per cent. I find that number to be low.
But later in your report, you say that the workforce availability of persons with disabilities is rather high. Could you elaborate on that and tell us what the specific problems with this group are?
Mr. Sims: Madam Chair, I am trying to find the appendix to the report, which gives the availability figures.
The number is low, you are right, but it is 6 per cent. We do not often talk about targets, but we do have them. There are workforce availability standards, and the standard for persons with disabilities is 4.5 per cent. Our 6 per cent exceeds that figure.
Senator Pépin: What level are they at currently?
Mr. Sims: That is mentioned in my report, I think.
Senator Pépin: I have looked, but I did not find it.
Mr. Sims: There is one at the EX level; there are 159 at the scientific and professional levels. In administration, there are 69, more or less. There are 22 in technical and none in operations. There are 46 in administrative support. That makes a total of 297 people in the department, or 6 per cent.
Senator Pépin: You also have a mentoring program. Is there a program for persons with disabilities too? Is the program that brought the persons with disabilities into the department national or regional in scope?
Mr. Sims: It is national, with a regional part to it. There are about 700 to 800 of us. The program is open to all, not just to persons with disabilities. We have data on the numbers in each group and we can provide them to the committee. We look for mentors and for people to receive their wisdom. At the moment, it involves about 700 people.
Senator Pépin: What are the specific difficulties that prevent those people from participating? Is it a physical disability that does not allow them to participate? Well, of course, they have a physical disability, but is there something more specific to this group that could be looked at?
Mr. Sims: I would not say that it is a homogeneous group. There is a variety, a range, of conditions, from serious to not at all serious. For some, the important thing is to have machines, specially developed tools that allow them to function. For someone who is blind, for example, there are machines that can read texts and translate them into Braille. There is a whole list of very specific situations.
Senator Pépin: Excellent. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for taking our questions. I will start with one comment, which is something I have not had a chance to share with my colleagues. I had an opportunity to meet with the Public Service Commission regional team in Vancouver in addressing some of the main issues that we have been discussing at this committee. They were having a special strategic planning meeting, and it was nice to put some of the pieces together and see such a committed group of people working very actively to improve their recruitment strategies and are working on the ground to ensure that we do have diversity in all departments.
One of the things that came out of that meeting with them was the idea of sharing some of the best practices. In terms of recruitment strategies for your department, how successful you have been with that. What they mentioned is they felt it was not necessarily a coordinated effort, that there needed to be a bit more dialogue. We had to be creative because nowadays, there are many opportunities for young capable people. In terms of the entry level, recruitment had to be creative.
What sort of sharing have you done necessarily with other departments? What are some of these strategies that have been successful for you?
Mr. Sims: Ms. Miller and I will try to share this answer. She will talk about some work that one of our deputy colleagues has been doing, but I will start by talking about some of the work that the Department of Justice has been doing itself in Vancouver.
The head of the regional office has made a point of going to associations of visible minority law students, for example, as an outreach effort to recruit. He does not wait for them to notice us. He goes there. The team we send is representative of our workforce. He and others who are making the pitch to students are themselves visible minorities and, therefore, there is an affinity. It makes the point rather obviously that this is not an organization that does not welcome and in which you cannot succeed as a member of a designated group.
A number of his practices over the years have encouraged a steady stream of applicants from student groups. The Department of Justice is not always top of mind for kids in law school. They think of the private sector, they think of Bay Street and so on. It is a surprise when they learn of the kind of work we offer and the opportunity to make a difference and so on.
We have had those kinds of outreach activities that have been very successful. We have participated more recently at job fairs organized at different universities across the country. That is more to attract people into the EX group than into the legal stream because it is a different point in the calendar when those people are coming on stream and when the lawyers are coming on stream.
Ms. Miller: Just to add a few points. Who we send out to the law schools is a fundamental issue. We want to send colleagues who truly represent the diversity. We make a concerted effort towards that end.
In terms of sharing best practices, a number of us have discussed particularly the recruitment of diversity amongst law students. We discussed it with our counterparts in the private sector. We have had some good conversations. We have had ``Justice Days'' in a number of law schools across the country where we go out and participate.
As the deputy minister was saying, many of the law students do not have an appreciation for the breadth and scope of the kind of national work we do in the Department of Justice. With the ones I participated in, there has been a concerted effort to ensure we know we represent the department, we know we need to represent the diversity of the department. That is certainly a consideration.
I think one of our colleagues from another department testified to this effect: At our last deputy ministers' retreat, we had a sharing of best practices amongst the deputy ministers' community. Mr. Sims spoke there, as did other deputy ministers, and it was a very effective session. Those are some examples.
Mr. Sims: I have not responded to your point more directly, which is that we probably should take more advantage than perhaps we have of the lessons that could be learned from the kind of group that you describe. I think it is a very good idea, and we should make a point of tracking those people down and asking them for what they have found works better perhaps than what we have already discovered.
Senator Martin: Especially with the diversity training, you were mentioning that something that would be across all departments would be very useful if there is a successful model. You had alluded to this training being successful as you have participated in it within the last few years. I wanted to ask you about some of the specifics. Diversity means that you are bringing a wealth of experiences and different traditions, so it could really improve the climate of any office. In a city like Vancouver, it is just part of the culture. We do not talk about it so much; we just live it.
In your department, with the kind of diversity training you are doing, if it is mandatory, is it done reluctantly? Do you just go through the motions and then it is done? Is it an ongoing training that would happen throughout the year until it becomes part of your office culture?
I know you have touched on a few things. In what ways would you say this diversity training has been effective for your department?
Mr. Sims: This version of it is just starting, but I would say that the senior people who spent a day with Carl Taylor last December all came away touched by that event. You do not just go away with a set of notes. You enter into a conversation with a man like Mr. Taylor, who has decades of experience in the area. He simply continues to challenge values, assumptions and ideas you had in your head that you may not even realize you had in your head until you start to become more open to the fact that what is in your head and heart may not be the only way to look at the world.
It is something we all know. We all know that, of course, but to actually slow down, put away your cell phone and BlackBerry and start that conversation is actually quite profound. It is hard to say, ``How am I different?'' I think I am; I think I am more aware. We began to have very interesting conversations.
Mr. Taylor said simple things like, you look at me and what do you see? We are all silent. He says you see a Black man, do not you? Yes. Then he rattles off all these other things; I am a father, a sportsman, an Anglican, I am this and that and the other. It was a pretty obvious point. Then we begin to talk about these things. You just get beyond the superficial into a conversation with and about the people you are working with.
I do not think I am doing justice to this conversation, but it was an amazing day. It changes how you look at these things.
Senator Martin: As you say, who you send out is just as important. Who leads and participates in diversity training will be equally important. It is good to know you have such effective facilitators doing this. I would encourage that on an ongoing basis.
The Chair: We have run out of time. Some senators wanted further questions. Senator Nancy Ruth wanted to ask about the resources and training you are now putting into visible minorities and to suggest you should rethink on the gender-based issues.
We will follow up with other questions. The clerk will receive questions from senators based on your written materials, and hopefully we can get a timely response.
Mr. Sims, thank you for coming back to the committee with your colleagues. I can probably assure you that you will be back again at some point. One thing I can say about this committee is that we do not put out one definitive report and point the government in that direction. Our task, as we see it, is to make changes to public policy in the direction that will be to the best benefit of Canadian citizens. That is what the Human Rights Committee is all about.
It was perhaps a bit by coincidence when headlines grabbed your department, but you have responded. We will continue to watch your progress, and I think it is probably appropriate that the Department of Justice lead in this area. We will have you back. You can be assured that we continue to look at ways and means.
We are struggling. We did put in our original report some recommendations touching things like contracts that do not serve the target groups appropriately. We looked at issues of systemic racism and wanted to address those. We did not come up with any magic answer. Perhaps what we are looking for is the continued leadership from the highest positions within our public service to embrace this personally.
You said you have done that, and we thank you for that. We are looking for any ways and means to come to the point where we will not have to be quite as persistent and we can be assured that there will be progress. At the moment, however, you will continue to dialogue with us, and we thank you for coming this evening.
Mr. Sims: Thank you for having us. You say that the Department of Justice should lead. We believe that as well; leaders should be visibly leading. We believe that, too. That is why Ms. Miller and Ms. Pratt and I are here. We also understand we are in for the long haul. It is not a quick fix; it is about continually investing and committing ourselves to achieving a workplace of dignity, respect and inclusiveness. That is what we will achieve. We will be pleased to come back.
The Chair: This session is over. We will have one further panel.
We are now turning to our second panel, which will continue on the reference we started on 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.
Our panel has been patiently waiting, and we thank you for that. We are running behind, and we appreciate your kindness in bearing with us, but we do want to get all the senators in with their questions.
From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Ms. Patty Ducharme, National Vice-President, and Ms. Allison Pilon, Human Rights/Employment Equity Officer.
The floor is yours for an opening statement. The senators have many questions, so we will ask you to be as succinct as you can, and we will respond in kind and perhaps get you on your way in time.
Patty Ducharme, National Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Thank you, once again for inviting us to appear before this committee to testify regarding hiring practices and employment equity in the federal public service.
I have provided a copy of a brief to the clerk in both official languages, and my statement this evening will be a summary of that brief.
Today we would like to provide our views on recent events impacting on employment equity, including some of the information that has recently been provided to the committee by the Public Service Commission regarding hiring rates for the equity groups.
I guess we have to start with the question of why we need self-identification. It is important to remember that many groups that testified before the 1985 Abella Commission on equality in employment, indicated the importance of voluntary self-identification. That is, the importance of having people from marginalized groups identify themselves rather than be identified by an employer.
How is self-identification information normally collected? Since the Employment Equity Act was extended to the federal public service some 14 years ago, the public service has been using figures from voluntary self-identification surveys of employees that are consistent with the Employment Equity Act and regulations. This is the same way other federal employers collect their employment equity data. Recently, however, the Public Service Commission changed its method of determining self-identification figures.
Ms. Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission, stated that the commission's previous numbers on newly-hired employees from the equity groups had been underestimated. She explained that the data was re-examined by looking at numbers of people who self-identify on the commission's website when they apply for a job, and then by tracking that information forward when these individuals are hired.
However, at the time the PSC collected this information and when Ms. Barrados presented her new numbers to this committee, the form on the job application website was not consistent with the Employment Equity Act. No consultations were done with unions or other stakeholders about using the website self-identification information. Only very recently as a result of some of the concerns that have been raised has the PSC made some changes to its website to ensure greater consistency with legislative requirements.
The PSC continues to rely on the numbers that were collected in a way that was, in our view, in violation of their obligations under the Employment Equity Act. We would note that while self-identification is not perfect, it is the only method to collect the information necessary to determine the composition of the workforce and, therefore, to take measures to ensure that the workforce is representative. While many suspect that there may be under-reporting in some cases, there is currently no way of determining the extent to which these are legitimate concerns.
Unfortunately, the PSC has not investigated the underlying causes of this suspected problem of under-reporting. My union, the PSAC, believes that the work that needs to be done is not to change the method of calculating the numbers but rather to investigate and eliminate any barriers that may be preventing self-identification from working the way it is intended.
This brings us to the focus of our presentation, which is the current state of employment equity in the federal public service. The recent report on employment equity in the public service from the office of the Chief Human Resources Officer at the Treasury Board demonstrates that a number of barriers continue to exist in the federal public service for all four equity groups. Although the representation of people with disabilities in the federal public service is above their workforce availability, the report indicates that the recruitment rate of persons with disabilities has not kept pace . As well, the separation rate, either through termination or otherwise, of disabled workers in the public service is almost three times the rate at which they are being hired.
For racialized workers, while there was an increase in their overall representation to 9.2 per cent during 2007-08, the representation rate is still far below the workforce availability. Note that the recently-available workforce figures derive from the 2006 Census show racialized workers at 15.3 per cent of the Canadian labour market. Given these figures and given that Statistics Canada predicts that 20 per cent of Canadians will be racialized by 2017, it is clear the federal public service is moving much too slowly in its efforts to achieve a representative workforce.
Data shows that Aboriginal workers are not represented across the various departments. A large portion of Aboriginal workers work in three departments, and many departments are still not meeting the workforce availability for Aboriginal peoples. The hiring rate for Aboriginal workers declined in 2007-08, and is still significantly lower than the rate of separation. This means that more Aboriginal employees are leaving the public service than are being hired.
Although women are well represented in the public service as a whole, they are still largely clustered in certain jobs and certain departments, as well as over-represented in the temporary employment category. The jobs that women hold are generally lower-paying jobs and ones that are seen as traditionally female jobs: Clerical and administration jobs. While women represent 54 per cent of public service employees, they represent only 41 per cent of the executive cadre.
Furthermore, consider the data from the recently released 2008 Public Service Employee Survey. The figures for racialized workers identify a number of barriers to full participation in the workplace, including a lack of access to language training and a lack of access to developmental assignments: Twenty-seven per cent of respondents who are racialized said that discrimination has had an adverse effect on their career progress. Thirty per cent reported being a victim of discrimination in the last two years, and 33 per cent reported being a victim of harassment.
Responses from workers with disabilities indicated barriers with respect to opportunities for and access to promotions, career development and training, and opportunities to advance and apply their skills in the workplace. Thirty-one per cent of respondents who identified as persons with disabilities said discrimination had an adverse effect on their career progress. A whopping 49 per cent reported being a victim of harassment, and 41 per cent reported being a victim of discrimination.
Forty-two per cent of Aboriginal workers reported being a victim of harassment, and 29 per cent reported being a victim of discrimination. Aboriginal workers are also more likely to be dissatisfied with the way in which complaints are addressed, and are less likely to feel that they will not suffer reprisal if they file a complaint.
Although women did not report levels of discrimination as high as other equity groups, 31 per cent of women reported being a victim of harassment. Also, since specific data has not been released for Aboriginal women, racialized women or women with disabilities, we do not know whether these women have reported additional barriers or higher rates of discrimination and harassment.
Why is it that these problems continue to persist in the federal public service? PSAC believes that, while there may be some commitment from the top management of the public service in terms of understanding the benefits of having a diverse workforce, little has changed in the culture of the public service at the workplace level. We need a culture change — a shift towards a truly inclusive workplace where the talents, skills and contributions of all workers are respected and valued, and where there is zero tolerance for harassment, racism and discrimination. Without such a culture change and without real enforcement of the Employment Equity Act, the goals of employment equity will continue to remain elusive.
Finally, we have some apprehension about what recent trends mean for the future of employment equity in the federal public service.
As the members of this committee may be aware, the government recently made a major change to the governance of human resources for the public service. Although we have not yet seen exactly how this new management of human resources will work in practice, two developments relating to employment equity concern us. First, it is not clear where the responsibility for employment equity lies within this new structure. Second, the new structure appears to delegate more responsibilities to departments and away from Treasury Board and central agencies.
In our previous submission to this committee, we outlined the problems with the delegation of staffing to lower levels of management where the Public Service Commission itself has noted there is not the same level of commitment and knowledge of employment equity principles.
The shift in recent years has been away from a central authority and accountability on the issue of employment equity. ``Embracing Change'' and the one in five hiring rule have been abandoned by the central agencies.
Staffing responsibilities have been delegated downwards, the hiring of casual and temporary workers has increased and non-advertised hiring processes are all too common. With these trends, it is hard to imagine how the federal public service can make any substantial improvements on employment equity in coming years.
In light of the concerns we have outlined, we would like to make a number of additional recommendations.
The government should revive the ``Embracing Change'' initiative and the one-in-five goal for hiring of racialized people, along with the funding for this initiative. The one-in-five goals should be applied to all departmental employment equity plans and policies.
We invite a discussion on the National Council of Visible Minorities recommendation calling for a commissioner of employment equity. Such a discussion should take place with appropriate representatives from the government, unions and other stakeholders, such as the NCVM, the National Council of Federal Employees with Disabilities and the National Council of Aboriginal Federal Employees.
An examination must be done of why it is that so many people with disabilities are leaving the public service. Are these departures voluntary? An audit should be done of the sick leave, return-to-work and accommodation practices in all departments to determine the extent of the problem.
A similar examination must be done for the high rate of separation for Aboriginal peoples from the public service and to identify any barriers to the participation and inclusion of Aboriginal workers in all departments.
That is our presentation. Of course, we are here to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We have your written presentation and now we have it in the verbal form. Senators, as you know, we have run overtime, so please be as brief as possible. Senator Pépin will begin our question period.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: When members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada appeared here in February 2008, it was stated that persons with disabilities were represented in the public service at a level that exceeded availability. But, when we looked a little more closely, we saw that there were actually examples of the aging population: employees who became sick or injured and who declared themselves as persons with disabilities as a result.
Has the situation changed since then? Has the public service hired persons with disabilities at the rate at which they are available? Are federal departments making the effort to hire persons with disabilities at a rate that corresponds to their availability? Are the departments doing that?
[English]
Allison Pilon, Human Rights/Employment Equity Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Thank you for the question. The problem continues. The most recent figures from the Treasury Board Office of the Chief Human Resource Officer show that the hiring rate of people with disabilities in 2007-08 was only 2.5 per cent, which is below workforce availability. The rate of representation is largely due to the fact that many people, as we pointed out in our earlier brief to this committee, become disabled during their career and then identify as a person with a disability.
What is not happening is the hiring at the front end in terms of making the workplace welcome and open to people with disabilities to come into the federal public service.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Since you are in a position to compare the two, could you tell us how the situation could be corrected? What is keeping that number down still?
[English]
Ms. Ducharme: As people age, many, throughout their careers, become disabled, not necessarily from a workplace incident. However, I do not know about active recruitment of persons with disabilities by different government departments. I am unaware of a government department that actively seeks out workers with disabilities at this point in time. I know that workers with disabilities are hired, but they are low numbers and below the workforce availability.
Senator Jaffer: Why is there reluctance to self identify? We have heard this so often. You have direct contact with people working in the bureaucracy. What is the reason?
Ms. Ducharme: Senator Jaffer, I actually cannot answer that question. I suppose, for each individual worker, the answer could be very different. Some workers do not want to be labelled a certain way or limited by their equity group designation.
For some, it could be for other reasons. Some people may be in denial about the fact that they have a disability or that they are a racialized person. We all have our internalized sensors. People do not self identify for a whole host of reasons. If we wanted to get a full sense of that, perhaps that is a question that should be put on the next public service employee survey.
Senator Jaffer: You used the word racism a number of times. It is very difficult for me to accept that racism exists within the ranks that you serve. What do you understand? What happens in the department? What do you define as racism?
Ms. Ducharme: As a fair skinned person, what I define as racism is probably quite different from what some of my racialized brothers and sisters define as racism. Racism and xenophobia can be manifested in many ways. I could be talking to a friend who looks like me and a person of colour walks in the room and we stop talking. It could be inappropriate humour. It could be excluding fellow workers in particular dynamics of a job. It could be not extending a hand that I would extend to someone I consider a friend or someone who is like me in the workplace, showing them the ropes, showing them how to manoeuvre through the politics of the office.
Racism in the workplace takes many faces and many manifestations. It is an incredibly difficult, hurtful, complex issue. You could spend an academic lifetime examining it and still would not have a full answer for the members of this committee.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Ducharme, do you think that exists?
Ms. Ducharme: Absolutely.
Senator Jaffer: I have many questions that I do not think it is fair to the committee or the witness, to ask at this point, so I will hand them to the clerk.
I am sorry to put this additional work on to you, but I really would like answers to these questions.
Senator Brazeau: Thanks to both of you for being here with us this evening.
Listening to your presentation, I noticed that at one point you mentioned that regardless of the data that one uses, it only shows a small picture of what is truly happening. By saying that, are you in fact concluding that there is no progress being made?
Ms. Ducharme: I am just checking to see where I said that.
Senator Brazeau: It is on page 3, the last paragraph.
The Chair: The paragraph that reads: ``Whichever data one uses, the hiring numbers only show one small part of the picture.''
Ms. Ducharme: What we are saying is there is a lot of work to be done on employment equity. We would suggest that, with regard to the information that had been provided by the Public Service Commission with respect to the significant increase in the hiring numbers, the hiring data are suspect because of the different process that had been used. However, we are recognizing that that is merely one small piece of the picture.
Senator Brazeau: We had previous witnesses who came before this committee and shared with us that progress was being made in different departments but that, at the same time, it does not mean that more work does not need to be done. I think we all agree in this committee that more work needs to be done.
What I see in this presentation, in particular, is a lot of problem definitions. What sustainable and long-term solutions would you have to offer to ensure that these issues are being met satisfactorily? What would enable you to come back in a year or so and to say with certainty that, yes, progress is being made?
Ms. Ducharme: One thing we have done that is concrete organizationally is that we have negotiated with Treasury Board for a joint learning program as part of our Treasury Board negotiations. One of the focuses of that joint learning program is an employment equity program that we teach jointly to managers and to our members. That is a concrete example of work we are doing in the workplace to make changes.
Obviously, we are not the employer, so we do not actually get to do the hiring of the people who work for the public service. However, we make every effort to ensure that the employers' practices are free of barriers and discrimination for those coming into the public service. We have made recommendations tonight with respect to trying to advance the issue of employment equity on an ongoing basis for the core public service. As well, we make employment equity education a priority, organizationally, as the largest public-sector union representing federal government workers in Canada.
Senator Poy: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I want to ask one question regarding the ``Embracing Change'' initiative and the 1 in 5. I understand that the Embracing Change initiative was really an advisory group and that it ceased to exist quite a few years ago. Can you tell me when it ended?
Ms. Ducharme: It was a funded task force that provided quite a comprehensive report with recommendations. The most significant recommendation was the recommendation for ``1 in 5'' and ensuring that there was funding to pursue the ``1 in 5'' objective in the core public service. I am trying to remember what year that report came out. I know it was after 2000, but I cannot remember if it was 2003. I am sorry about that.
Senator Poy: I know it was quite a few years ago.
To me, it made a lot of sense, because you said in your presentation that in 2017, 20 per cent of Canadians will be, using your term, racialized, which means 1 in 5. Even when the ``Embracing Change'' initiative was in existence, it did not really have the stick to enforce the goal, and I am not sure whether, if it is revived, it can have any effect in enforcement. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Pilon: You are right; there needs to be more enforcement. We agree that enforcement is important. There was funding attached to the initiative and there were some positive programs. The initiative has been dropped and the funding has been lost, which is a setback. We have not heard any inkling from the Public Service Commission or Treasury Board in terms of any interest in reviving the initiative. If there were, we would certainly have some recommendations with respect to how it could be implemented effectively. It is true that the lack of enforcement with respect to employment equity is a specific problem that we have outlined in our submission. Unfortunately, the Canadian Human Rights Commission does not have the resources that it requires to adequately carry out its enforcement of the Employment Equity Act.
Ms. Ducharme: One thing that we have talked about in the past at various levels of government is with regard to senior managers making the commitment to employment equity and that being part of their accountability in their performance review. There should be a price attached to not fulfilling one's obligations under the Employment Equity Act legislation for senior managers. I have yet to be made aware of a situation where a senior manager has not received their full performance review pay, regardless of their performance on employment equity.
The Chair: I have one question. You said you want to go back to the target, 1 in 5, for racialized groups. Within your own Public Service Alliance, do you use the same methodology?
Ms. Ducharme: It is very interesting that you ask that. Today and tomorrow, there is a two-day Joint Employment Equity Committee meeting, whereby representatives of the various employment equity groups, as well as gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered workers, who we also recognize as an equity group, are meeting in Ottawa to discuss our staffing and employment equity processes, organizationally.
We staff jobs and we designate certain positions as employment equity imperative, with particular groups, or employment equity desirable. We do that having done some analysis of the workplace representation. A good example would be Vancouver, where we have an incredibly diverse regional office staff because Vancouver is an incredibly diverse city. We have areas where we have higher representation from Aboriginal workers because the populations are, by and large, predominantly Aboriginal peoples. We try to make our workforce, despite the fact we are not covered by the Employment Equity Act legislation, representative of our membership who live and work from coast to coast to coast across Canada.
The Chair: Lest our viewers and senators think this was a setup, when did you go to the model of employment equity? Since you are using it within your own organization, do you still believe it is the best model?
Ms. Ducharme: I will be completely honest. The union has had a proactive employment equity hiring practice since before I became an officer of the union in May of 2000. A colleague who lives in Vancouver wrote our original employment equity plan back in the early 1990s, but I cannot with any precision give you a date.
The Chair: We have come to the end of your time. We thank you for your patience in waiting to come before us, and we thank you for your input. No doubt we will be calling on you again at some future date. If you have any other information coming out of your workshop or any other directions that might be helpful within the four target groups, please pass that on to us.
Senators, we will now hear a panel with respect to another order of reference. That is: monitoring issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. Specifically, we are looking at the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review that Canada participated in recently. The council is new, the procedures are new, and it was Canada's first time to appear. We know that there are issues with the procedure both at the council and with Canada's submission in the eyes of some of the participants, or at least those who wish to consult with the government. We are continuing our reference in order that we can give our best advice on the processes, procedures and policies that Canada should have towards the council and, in particular, the Universal Periodic Review.
We have just filed in the Senate our recommendation that, as Canada responds to the council, it also put in what the process will be for the next four years. As our witnesses know, Canada will be reviewed every four years, as will every other country. In doing so, Canada has to go through a process, part of which is consultation with civil society and with other stakeholders. We have requested that Canada put forward a process well in advance, starting now, looking forward to the next review. We have not said at this point what that process should take into account and look like. We are asking the government to give consideration to announcing its process in the near future.
To continue our full study, which we hope we will report on in the coming months, we have before us this evening from EGALE Canada, Mr. Akim Ade Larcher, Director of Policy and Research, and from the International Center for Transitional Justice, Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez-Cueva, Deputy Director, Americas. Thank you for your patience as we have been running a little late with so many questions.
Welcome. We will take you in the order that you are listed on the agenda. Mr. Larcher, please proceed.
Akim Ade Larcher, Director of Policy and Research, EGALE Canada: Thank you. I will try to be as exciting and interesting as possible at this hour.
I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights for its invitation to EGALE Canada to participate in this important debate relating to the United Nations Human Rights Council and, specifically, Canada's Universal Periodic Review. EGALE Canada would like to thank you for the standing committee's unwavering leadership and support in this field of foreign affairs and international human rights, especially in its continuing engagement with civil society organizations like ourselves.
EGALE Canada is Canada's national lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified human rights organization advancing equality, diversity, education and justice. EGALE has members in every province and territory. Our board of directors is comprised of an elected male and female representative from each of the six regions of Canada. EGALE has intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in every gay rights case that has reached the court.
On September 8, 2008, EGALE submitted its report to the United Nations Human Rights Council outlining the status of LGBT rights in Canada. We would like to assure the committee that prior to our submission, we contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Canadian Heritage, both of whom seemed unaware who should be taking the lead on the UPR.
In its initial email of August 8, it had taken almost three weeks for Canadian Heritage to advise that consultations with civil society would take place well after our September 8 deadline and before the December deadline of Canada's national report. As we are all aware, these consultations took place in January 2009 after the national report was tabled at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
I would like to remind the committee that according to the Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of June 18, 2007, paragraph 15(a) states that: ``States are encouraged to prepare the information they submit through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders.''
We believe there was ample time to prepare and put in place systems that would have allowed for a transparent and inclusive review of Canada's human rights record with civil society organizations. I am sure the standing committee is aware that several civil society groups were not satisfied with the process. We would like to let the record reflect that EGALE Canada is even more concerned with the follow-up after the UPR and the implementation of the accepted recommendations.
Canada has a reputation and image of being a leader and visionary in our approach to human rights on the international stage. Sadly, we failed to demonstrate that leadership as a government when the ball was dropped in consulting and engaging with grassroots organizations that work on a wide range of issues in Canada.
It is clear at this point that there were serious problems with the way civil society organizations were engaged. Moving forward, we need to ensure in the post-review process that engagement is improved and made more transparent with civil society organizations, not only in consultation meetings, but also in the decision-making process.
The April 21 meetings in Ottawa showed a lack of understanding toward civil society organizations. There were many concerns about the timing of the event, lack of sufficient notice and questions around the representation in the room. EGALE Canada always welcomes the opportunity to engage with government representatives at DFAIT, CIDA and Canadian Heritage. Following the UPR, EGALE has found that Canada does not have a clear vision or position on lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified rights in Canada or internationally.
Canada has progressive laws and we are touted as one of the few countries in the world to recognize same-sex marriages. However, we have no international position on how we share our best practices on LGBT rights. LGBT issues are passed from one department to another like a hot potato. Statistics on economic, social, cultural, civil and political human rights of LGBT people are not available in Canada.
It is ever more important that through this entire process, EGALE is engaged and consulted. This process should ensure transparency, accountability and free information to all rights holders. EGALE would like to recommend that a stronger strategy be put forward for further consultation with civil society and other stakeholders in the decision- making process.
Canada has recently tabled its response to the report of the working group on Canada's UPR. What remains unclear is how the implementation will take place.
Eduardo Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Americas, International Centre for Transitional Justice: Thank you. I am honoured to represent my institution, the International Center for Transitional Justice, before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. The sustained engagement of this committee to study the effectiveness of the United Nations Human Rights Council and its instruments, particularly the Universal Periodic Review, is a distinctive contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights both in Canada and abroad.
My organization supports countries examining the legacy of past massive or systemic abuse through transitional justice policies. Transitional justice affirms the rights of individual or collective victims to know the truth about the circumstances of violations, to pursue the prosecution of abusers and to obtain integral reparation.
We have done that by facilitating comparative international information on truth seeking and reparations. Particularly in the case of Canada, we have done that through contributions to the process of redress for the legacy of the forced assimilation system known as the Indian residential schools. We have had an active interaction with stakeholders and with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
My contribution this evening will be based on the direct experience of my institution as a civil society observer during the fourth session of the Universal Periodic Review, which took place on the morning of February 3, 2008 for issues concerning Canada. I would also like to call the attention of the committee to the substantive issues raised in our UPR contribution since they figure prominently in the interventions of approximately 40 delegations posing questions and recommendations to the Canadian delegates.
The ICTJ submitted a contribution to Canada's UPR in September 2008. The focus of our document was an analysis of Canada's process of resolution to the abuses committed in the Indian residential schools. We made our document publicly available in advance of the UPR process through our website and to our partners in Canada. This includes mainly civil society groups and members of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Our contribution was used in the summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in advance of the February session where Canada would be examined. I participated personally before the session with numerous colleagues from other organizations in a meeting with members of the Canadian delegation led by Mr. John Sims, Deputy Minister of Justice. I heard the presentation by Mr. Sims and other members of the delegation as well as interactive dialogue with other countries' representatives on February 3.
The review of Canada attracted a great amount of interest from working group and observer delegations. Sixty- eight countries requested to take the floor during the interactive dialogue. Only 45 could intervene due to time constraints. Most of the interventions commended Canada's human rights record and its leadership in the promotion of human rights. However, they also pointed out areas of concern such as the situation of indigenous peoples, including: the fact that Canada has not supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; violence against women; protection of immigrants; and racial discrimination. Additionally, the discussion included socio- economic rights such as poverty alleviation, economic inequality, education, health and housing.
The national report submitted by the government described the country's human rights policies and institutions in detail. It took pains to explain that the federal structure of the state resulted in shared responsibilities between the federal government and its provincial counterparts. This explained, in the view of the delegation, the extensive and sometimes slow process of consultation before ratifying human rights treaties. Substantively, the report reviewed challenges and remedial policies in areas such as Aboriginal issues, national security, health care, housing, education, women's rights and immigration.
The compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner addressed a number of these areas, with particular attention to the lack of expeditious procedures for the adjudication of land claims, resulting in tensions with Aboriginal peoples. It also highlighted problems related to homelessness and allegations of discrimination against immigrants.
Stakeholders' submissions paid special attention to three issues: concerns about abuses that are perpetrated in the framework of anti-terrorism policies; violence against women, in particular Aboriginal women; and the generalized situation of disadvantage and the gap in human rights achievement between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations. Our centre's submission, summarized by the Office of the High Commissioner, made specific recommendations regarding the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, insisting in particular on ensuring its full independence and its ability to address survivors' needs of healing and recognition.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Gonzalez, we have your written report and it is very lengthy. Our process here is to ask you to highlight the issues, because we have the written text and it is extensive. We would like to move to questions and, in fairness to the witnesses, we would like to know if there are some highlights that you want to draw attention to, because we have had the benefit of the report. I do not mean to cut you off but it is to allow us to have a meaningful dialogue with you.
Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you so much, Senator Andreychuk. I do not know well the procedure of the committee. Allow me to focus on specific issues that I think could open the floor for interesting discussion.
The main question that I understand emerges from this committee's study of the Universal Periodic Review, is whether it is efficient and whether it works. I submitted a lengthy contribution because I wanted to do what we sociologists call ``an active observation of the issue.'' It was basically an ethnography of what a UPR looks like. If you were to ask me whether the UPR process with its interactive dialogue works, the answer will be a resounding, ``Yes, but.''
There are a number of issues to be considered. The Universal Periodic Review is based on two assumptions. The first is that the information — the substantive focus of the discussion — will be sufficient and accurate: given by the state and summarized by the Office of the High Commissioner and by the stakeholders, that is, civil society organizations. The second is that there will be enough trust to participate in a fair way during the interactive dialogue.
In the case of Canada, those two assumptions generally work. You can expect the government to take seriously the need of presenting before the international community and that areas not covered by the government would be covered in the form of acute and concrete criticism by civil society organizations or observers, such as my organization. You can also expect that the peers of the Canadian government present in the UPR will read, study the discussion and ask questions of this delegation without any fear of political retaliation. I observed a number of other presentations during that week. I will not give names because I did not take notes on the presentations other than Canada's but, evidently, what works for Canada does not work for other countries.
To begin with, some countries do not present full information during their government presentations. There are some countries where civil society organizations simply do not even know that the UPR exists or are not aware that they can participate in it. Sometimes they know about it and want to participate but may be in such a position that they cannot do so.
On the procedural side, it is possible for governments that are not fully interested in an extensive and comprehensive discussion to play with the rules. One simple way of doing it is to mobilize bloc politics. If you want to stifle any acute questions coming from the floor, then you can ask your friends, partners and colleagues in your blocs to stack the floor. At 6 a.m. in front of the clerk's office of the Office of the High Commissioner, there can have a long line of junior staff from the different missions of one particular bloc lining up so that they can take precedence in the list of delegations that are to take place in the debate.
As a result, the delegations that wanted to ask pointed questions but did not wake up early enough are not represented. The debate is for three hours only so not all delegations will be able to participate. In the case of Canada, 63 countries wanted to take the floor. All of them had to make very quick interventions, dispensing even with the most elementary rituals of diplomatic politesse to be able to use their 5 minutes. Even so, it was impossible to have time for all the delegations. If you are able to mobilize the junior staff of 40 of your friends' missions, you can be completely sure that you will receive softballs.
Those are two extremes. A cynical view could say, well, you really are in trouble then because the UPR may not be completely necessary for countries like Canada, who, after all, have democratic procedures to conduct internal criticism and, perhaps, are already too weak for countries that are completely dictatorial and do not care at all about these kinds of issues. The question is: What happens to the countries in the middle, who are the majority?
Having read the two reports of this Senate committee, I think that the concern about the effectiveness of the UNHRC and the UPR need not be on the extremes of the bell curve but on most of the cases, the statistically significant part. I am sorry for being so sociological. It is apparent that all countries, from those that are advanced and well-established democracies to those lacking in that respect, care and that they understand the power of pointed questions.
The UPR system has a number of merits but the response to it and what is critical, is in the cleanness and fairness of the procedure and the ability of all participants to think of appropriate procedures. An important procedural issue that has been raised by my colleague is the fact that if the rules are strong enough, not just to suggest but to actually impose some form of obligation in the state to conduct substantive and timely consultations, then that might also contribute to the effectiveness of the process.
We see that even in a country as sophisticated as Canada, many weaknesses were admitted — by the delegation, in all fairness — to the process of national consultation. You can imagine that other countries will also so that if a country as advanced as Canada uses that kind of excuse.
I want to finish by telling you as part of my observation, that in the case of Canada, it was incredibly salient and very clear how much attention there was to Aboriginal issues. Perhaps 50 per cent of the questions had to do with that.
It was also clear that most of the delegations were not aware of the Indian residential schools' resolution system and the existence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our UPR submission made a number of recommendations on that. They are contained in the submission that I have given to you. At some point, I will modestly suggest to the committee that it will be interesting to focus precisely on that issue.
Issues of human rights, lack of achievement, gaps of achievement and discrimination cannot be properly understood just in the present. They have roots; they have a history. The fact that there is some sort of retrospective view on how these systemic injustices came to be needs to be understood and taken into account.
It is well-known that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is being reconvened after a year of' a very lamentable crisis. We hope for the next UPR, Canada will have something to say in that regard.
The Chair: I have a list and a shortage of time. We are somewhat like the council, but we will try to make sure that all the senators get on the list, not just those that arrived early in the morning. It is not only at the Human Rights Council that the queuing at 6 a.m. occurs. It is symptomatic of the system.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Larcher, you said in your paper there were some serious problems in the way in which civil society organizations were engaged. You talked about the consultation meetings and the decision-making process. If you could redesign it and wave a magic wand, what would you have had happen? In terms of the consultation process — before, after, ongoing, involvement in decision-making and keeping the Department of Justice accountable, how would you design it?
Mr. Larcher: I am not sure exactly how, but one of the things when we were looking at the engagement process was that following 2007, we were not even aware of the UPR process. When the Canadian delegation at the Human Rights Council was aware of this UPR process coming to fruition, that information was not readily available to civil society members.
We had one month. When we were informed by our international partners that a UPR for Canada was coming up.
I do not think there is a readily available list of civil society members that are working on specific issues, how communication takes place within departments and which civil society members are engaged in the process. There is a lack of communication, whether horizontal or vertical, that exists and that is one of the biggest gaps.
Another issue of concern is the lack of understanding of what civil society organizations look like, in the sense of what are we working with, how big or small are we? Giving me a month's notice to attend a meeting is fairly difficult if we only have one staff member. Attending meetings and consultations, in that sense, was not very beneficial with a short time period. It is very difficult with short notice to just pick up and travel and go. That is another concern.
Another thing I want to touch on that my colleague was speaking about was that systemically, even within the UN and looking at the whole UPR process with the Canadian departments, there is a lack of trust with civil society members, and how to engage with us. That clearly showed itself here. In the UPR process, civil society members' ability to lobby other governments, to raise issues or make recommendations is difficult. It is costly to attend the UPR process, so smaller organizations are not readily available to do that. There is a lack of funding available to civil society organizations to participate in this process.
In conversations with DFAIT, CIDA and Canadian Heritage around how EGALE can participate in the fourth session — how can we be there to support Canada and, at the same time, make recommendations — no one knew. They basically said this was up to you to do. We are going as our own government representative. If you would like to participate as a civil society member, you will have to find the resources yourself.
In that sense, seeing us more as divisive rather than as a partner is something that needs to change. That is something I would like to see redesigned, perhaps.
Senator Nancy Ruth: EGALE has issues — wanting training, for instance, for immigration and refugee court judges. I also know that you would like to be able to have more influence on the Department of Foreign Affairs or CIDA in terms of what Canada does with countries like Jamaica, where there is huge persecution of LGBT rights. Is there any mechanism that came out of the UPR, or advice you got from other NGOs, on how to influence government strategy on issues of concern to you?
Mr. Larcher: In conversations with DFAIT and CIDA, it is like you are talking left hand and right hand. These are issues around the LGBT community, especially internationally. Canada is continuing and has spoken very loudly that we will be re-engaging with the Americas. A large majority of those countries criminalize same-sex acts; homophobia and transphobia is very present on the ground. People are losing their lives.
That question was raised to DFAIT prior to the Organization of American States' summit and no one knew exactly what our position was. In a conversation that was convened and in consultation with persons who are interested in various issues, we asked what is Canada's position? How are we looking at engaging with countries that have this reputation and how will we use our best practices? No one knew.
They basically said we will have to speak with CIDA, so now DFAIT was sending me to CIDA. It was like a hot potato. I do not think there is an answer. Still, we are waiting — it is over two months now from that conversation. We were told we would be put in contact with the right person, the person who is holding that envelope, that division, to work on that issue and we are still waiting.
There is a disconnect. The Department of Foreign Affairs has seen many ministers go through over a period of time. There is an opaque situation within our Foreign Affairs and international reputation that needs to be fixed. When it comes to LGBT issues, it is definitely showing much more than other issues. I hope that answers your questions.
Senator Jaffer: I was going to ask the question that Senator Nancy Ruth asked. I am going to ask something not necessarily for an answer tonight. If you wanted the process to work really well for the next time — that is also what we are looking at — what would it look like? You could provide that to us later.
Mr. Larcher: Briefly, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, probably about two months ago, consulted with us on a national report card, a prototype. I am not sure if the committee is aware of this prototype card that is coming through.
In the consultation, they did mention that this was something that would help in the UPR process. Basically, it is looking nationally at what Canada's human rights record is, using the categories that are protected under human rights' law and measuring it against various economic and social issues.
It may work for issues around sex, race or Aboriginal persons. The problem for persons based on sexual orientation is that Statistics Canada does not record anything other than that you are married. In terms of dropout rates or issues around someone who might be like myself — who emigrated from St. Lucia and is now here and is gay — my socio- economic or political standing is not recorded. That is the biggest issue we have; we do not know.
In the creation of the prototype, the question is how do we get that national overview provincially and territorially? The issue is collecting data. That is the biggest thing in terms of the way we see it. As well, there needs to be consulting with all groups across the board and find out how they can accurately record those abuses or violation and take it forward from there.
Senator Jaffer: That is very helpful. Mr. Gonzalez, you gave me an insight that I did not have. I do not have a question for you because you answered our questions. We will certainly read what you have and consider what you have said in the report.
Senator Poy: Mr. Gonzalez, I do not have legal training, so I may be the only senator here who does not really understand what transitional justice is. Can you define it, please? What government carries it out? Is it all individual governments? You have mentioned things like the process of truth and reconciliation around the legacy of the residential schools, violence against women, and treatment of minorities and Aboriginal peoples. I would like to know what it entails.
Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you for the opportunity to deal with an issue that is a novel field in the protection of human rights.
Transitional justice is the generic name given to a number of policies that are based on three rights that are universally recognized as rights assisting victims of serious human rights violations. Those three rights are as follows. First, the right to truth, a right recognized by the Human Rights Council since 2005. That is, the right of victims to know circumstances of a given violation, the reasons for the violation, the whereabouts of victims, the fate of those who have disappeared, for example. Second, there is the right to pursue justice. That is, the right to ensure that there will not be impunity in cases of mass atrocities such as crimes against humanity or genocide. Third, there is the right in principle to try to return the victim to the situation before the violation. Those are the three rights that are internationally emerging as the minimum for victims of mass atrocities.
In addition, it is recognized that governments have an obligation to put in place certain institutional structures to prevent the reoccurrence of violations. What good is it to create a truth commission and expose a crime if you do not reform the institution that committed those crimes? The reform of abusive institutions such as security forces; the dissolution of abusive intelligence services; and the reform of a judicial apparatus could be measures of transitional justice.
What to do with past abuses is a complicated issue. Some leaders may think that dealing with recent abuse may endanger their capacity to pursue their agendas and may challenge the capacity to create alliances across the aisle, as they say in the United States, for example. At the same time, not addressing these issues has a serious possibility of losing moral legitimacy. Many countries around the world have seen transitions to democracy and have seen how newly elected democratic leaders compromise on the treatment of the past. When they do, the democracy that has been achieved with so much difficulty starts to look more like the past regime.
What did South Africa do after the Apartheid regime? How did the countries in my region, Latin America, deal with the legacy of military dictatorships? If there is a transition in Zimbabwe or in Burma, what should one do? Those are the issues dealt with by transitional justice approaches.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Members of the Human Rights Council and civil society members made a number of recommendations to Canada during the UPR. What were the most important recommendations and how should Canada respond to them?
Mr. Gonzalez: There were a number of very important recommendations, particularly about the process of developing policy and on specific initiatives. But I would like to focus on one recommendation. It was very pertinent, especially for First Nations. It was the huge call from civil society and from other delegations for Canada to accept the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Canadian delegation was severely criticized because Canada had been involved in the process of negotiating the declaration, but, when the government changed, Canada did a major about-face. So there was a very specific recommendation about it.
Senator Pépin: The UPR report highlights the fact that there are some international conventions that Canada has not ratified. Which ones should Canada consider as priorities?
Mr. Gonzalez: I made a complete list of the conventions that were mentioned during the UPR. One of the most pertinent is Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization. This convention deals with systematic consultation with indigenous peoples on all matters that affect them, for example, their territories, their rights, their customs and their capacity for meaningful autonomy. Canada has not signed this international convention. The explanation given by the Canadian delegation was that Canada has a legal obligation to find a balance between the rights of its indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, that is, the rights of all other Canadians. So the government has a responsibility to examine that balance before signing on to the convention.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to thank Mr. Larcher and Mr. Gonzalez for your input. We have heard many witnesses on this topic but you both brought a different perspective and suggestions, which have been extremely helpful.
I think we will all agree that we are profiting from the first round of the UPR. We will continue to monitor to see whether the first year was just growing pains or whether there will be more institutional soundness to the process. If there is anything that you can provide for us, not only directed to the Government of Canada but also to the Human Rights Council to allow for better processes, we would appreciate receiving your input.
When we were there a year before the UPR, we were told that Canada would be coming up this coming November. While things were going on here in Ottawa, we found out it was February. We should learn from experiences. Hopefully, the process will be more appropriate for those who need to avail themselves of it, namely, those people whose rights may be abused or not fully implemented, whether in Canada or elsewhere.
Thank you for bringing the Canadian perspective to the international realm and vice versa. It has been helpful. Thank you for your patience in waiting to come on to this panel.
The witness will be excused at this point as senators will be going into an in camera session.
(The committee continued in camera.)