EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 1995

.0900

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting of our committee to order.

Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized, please? I'm here as deputy House leader of my party, and I'd like to make the following motion: that this committee condemn the chairman for his undemocratic and unparliamentary conduct during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64, and I'd like to speak to that.

This motion is all about authority, who has it, who gives it, who uses it, how it is used, and who takes it back in the end. In our parliamentary system all authority emanates from the House of Commons. But I know something, Mr. Chairman. When a member enters or leaves the chamber of the House of Commons, he or she bows to the Speaker's chair, and the member bows to that chair whether it's our regular Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, or even a regular member of Parliament.

This small action has great significance. The small act of deference that members offer the chair is not an act of deference to a person, it is a show of honour to the chair itself and a symbol of authority to the rule of law rather than the rule of tooth and claw.

Ultimately, all members recognize that we serve under the rule of law rather than the rule of the club or the gun and that there is a higher law that presides over the House of Commons and over all members, and indeed over this land. We all follow the rule of law because the law is held dear in our hearts and is the basis of a peaceful society. We don't have to be forced to obey the law by someone with a stick hanging over us. We obey the law because we believe in the law. We follow the rules carefully, not only because we believe in them but because all laws in our land emanate from the House of Commons. Members follow the Standing Orders to set an example for the Canadians we ask to obey the laws that are passed in the House of Commons. This House therefore ought to stand as a noble example of careful obedience to its own laws.

All members have together deliberated about the application of this higher law to the House of Commons, and collectively we have written a set of laws that governs all our actions in the House. All the members of this committee are very familiar with this set of laws. They are called the Standing Orders.

There are some basic principles of reasonableness that are embodied in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. One is that an opposition party is a valuable resource for the nation, not a body to be lightly cast aside. John Stuart Mill said a century ago that truth emerges through the collision of opinion. This is a perfect illustration of the House of Commons. It is an ideological battleground, a forum for opinions to collide and struggle, and I think Canadian history shows that the best one usually wins.

The collision of opinion is good for Canada. An opposition party is a valuable resource that opposes in the public interest, and the opposition members on any committee deserve to be welcomed by it. There are countries in which such freedom of expression is not welcome, and we decry the laws of these countries and we feel blessed that we are not like them.

The second principle embodied in the standing committee is just as important, the principle of majority rule. It is perfectly right for Canadians to elect a strong, majority government and for the government to have the final say in all the laws that are passed in Canada. The Standing Orders acknowledge the principle of majority rule. Not I nor my Reform colleagues would argue in any way with this principle.

But the third principle is the one upon which our disagreement rests. It is a principle that is meant to balance the first two. The opposition is valuable, majority must rule, but the struggle of opinion and the freedom of the opposition to try to garner public support for its cause is also of great importance to our system.

On April 14, 1987, Speaker Fraser ruled, and I quote:

...that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly.

.0905

Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.

My point, and Speaker Fraser's, is clear: debate is welcomed, not stifled. There is a reasonable ideological struggle and then the decision is taken. Opposition members who wish to debate are not to be considered obstructionist; they are to be considered to be responsible. They are doing their job. Those who refuse to accept this idea may lack a complete understanding of our parliamentary system.

Allow me to recap in a very brief way what was said in the point of privilege delivered by my colleagues, Chuck Strahl and Ken Epp.

It is my understanding, first of all, that untranslated amendments laid before this committee were not accepted because they were in English only. This is clearly contrary to the Official Languages Act and the practices of the House, and if the committee chose to rule against the act, I believe it was out of order.

We freely admit that this was done as a delaying tactic. The members felt that the committee had gone through several days of in-camera debate, but there was little or no public debate that would allow both sides of this question to be publicly heard.

You will remember that of the 50-odd witnesses who had been heard, just 4 were taken from the list that Reformers had submitted. Thus, there was little or no real debate.

Reform members feel that this was clearly contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders, and so during the clause-by-clause consideration they took steps to rectify it. The fact that an act of Parliament was cast aside in order to rush into debate did grave disservice to practices of this House and to the rule of law.

Some members felt proud of what they did that night, but I think they should feel ashamed for disobeying the laws of the land they pledged to uphold. The chairman of this committee in particular disregarded the act and the spirit of reasonableness embodied in the Standing Orders, choosing instead to stand on his raw power to dominate proceedings as he wished.

This action was essentially telling, given that he is chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, supposedly committed to the cause of democratic rights around the world, not only in this House. By this action, the legitimacy of the chair has sunk in our eyes to a level that is beyond repair.

The Speaker chose not to touch the matter because of an administrative order of the House, but I say that the committee had no right to disregard the spirit of the law simply because the House vested in it a high degree of procedural authority. With authority goes an extra duty of responsibility.

Secondly, the committee chose to stifle debate after only two hours of debate by shortening the time available to discuss each clause to just five minutes. This was not time enough even to read the amendments aloud, let alone debate them and ask any questions of witnesses.

The very idea that an opposition member should be denied the opportunity to address a government amendment is clearly and obviously wholly unreasonable, and we have heard as much from many long-time employees of this House.

Finally, there were distinct procedural shortcomings, such as passing a clause without a vote, allowing debate to go on for more than five minutes on a clause for the benefit of a government member, allowing debate to continue after the agreed-upon adjournment time, and, as happened to Mr. Epp, improperly rescinding a vote that had already been taken.

Many times throughout that evening the chairman prevailed upon the opposition to be more reasonable, not to oppose a certain clause or try to draw out debate. For him to launch an appeal to the conscience of opposition members, asking them not to do their job, is unacceptable indeed.

Government members should understand in addition that we on this side of the House view this legislation as fundamentally discriminatory and morally wrong. The attempts at moral suasion by the chairman, therefore, must fall on deaf ears. The opposition would sincerely counter: how dare the government bring in this kind of legislation? It is contrary to the public interest, to morality and to common sense.

All these matters were brought before the Speaker by my colleagues. They were rejected by the Speaker, who suggested that until we had a report from the committee, he could not rule on the question. We hope that report will be duly filed.

In closing, I want to make my own appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee. In the light of what I have said, I ask you to consider whether your actions were truly reasonable. Is it right to limit debate to five minutes per clause after only two hours of debate? Perhaps after a hundred hours.

The GST debate, Liberals will remember, went on for a long time before the Conservative majority forced an end to it. In the Senate alone the Liberals led a filibuster that lasted 24 hours per day for 7 full days. Is it reasonable now to deny the opposition members the right to even speak to amendments or to ask questions of witnesses?

Is it right for you, Mr. Chairman, to flaunt the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House and trample legitimate debate just because you know that the partisan majority on the committee will back you on whatever you choose to do?

To hide behind the rule of the House that a committee should solve its own problems - do you solve all your problems by driving over them with a steamroller? I should hope not.

As you all know, Reform members chose to leave the committee room when it became clear that democracy was not being respected in this committee, and they will not return to the table until the rules of the House of Commons concerning debate, especially Standing Order 116, which directs standing committees to respect the Standing Orders to the House, are once again observed.

.0910

I want to repeat that we observe the committee's actions as a grave abuse of parliamentary process. We therefore respectfully and seriously request:

(a) that this committee make a full formal report of the events of May 18 and 19 to the Speaker;

(b) that the chairman resign his chairmanship of the committee until the Speaker makes his ruling. This is according to the practice of the chair of the justice committee, Mr. Lachance, who resigned in 1984 after such controversial actions in committee - an action cited by Speaker Fraser in his ruling on March 26, 1990, who said ``that by so doing, he acknowledged the parliamentary significance of his action''.

(c) that should the Speaker find that the privileges of a member were breached, a full apology be given to the Reform members of the committee;

(d) that the committee commit itself to follow the letter of the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House in its future dealings; and

(e) that debate on the issue of employment equity in the committee be reopened to some reasonable extent. For our part, if the Speaker rules that no privileges were breached and the Standing Orders adhered to, Reform members will be happy to offer a full apology and to return to the committee table as full participants.

On a broader basis, Reformers are concerned that although the authority of the committee emanates in the House, there is virtually no avenue of appeal back to the authority of the House in cases like this. We will therefore seek appropriate changes to the Standing Orders to create a mechanism by which committees, in extreme cases, can be made more accountable to the House of Commons that creates them. We will do this by making representation to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Finally, I want to reiterate my desire to return to the committee as a full participant in the democratic process once that process has been restored. I want to convey my good wishes to all of you as you consider our request and thank you for this intervention this morning.

The Chair: Is there any other debate on the motion?

I would like to make a brief statement since the motion is directed to the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I don't object to a debate, but that should not infringe in the minister's time so that we will have the pleasure to spend an hour with him and to put to him all the questions we want to.

I want to make sure that this is not a delaying tactic which would prevent us from asking questions to the Minister. I have no objection to discussing all this. Moreover, the Reform Party chose to devote a full day to employment equity. I know that you are a good speaker and that we will have the pleasure to discuss this, but the important thing here, is that we have the opportunity to ask questions to the minister for a full hour. That's the only thing that counts for me today.

[English]

The Chair: I agree with you that we have an agenda here. We have the minister, who is working on a very tight schedule. What is the pleasure of the committee? Would you like to continue with the debate on the motion or would you like to defer debate on the motion until after we have heard the minister?

Mr. Maloney (Erie): I would move that we defer debate on the motion until we've heard from Minister Rock, and then I'll be happy to proceed with the discussion with the hon. member's intervention.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Agreed.

[English]

The Chair: Do we have consensus on that? Any debate on the motion?

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Question.

The Chair: The question has been asked to defer further debate of Mr. Harper's motion until we have heard the Minister of Justice and the other witnesses this morning.

Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Don't we have to deal with the motion that's on the table first?

The Chair: The deferral motion has precedence over the original motion.

The clerk just advised me that we need unanimous consent to defer the motion.

Mr. Strahl: No, there is no consent.

The Chair: Since there is no consent, I think we have to proceed to the debate on the motion and thereafter a vote on the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We will debate the Reform Party's motion? That will be a great moment of personal growth for you!

.0915

[English]

The Chair: Since we are guided by the rules, I I would like to make a very brief statement and then the committee can decide to put it to a vote.

First, I would just like to indicate that this chair has followed the Standing Orders of the House and the Standing Orders as they apply to the committee, that I have always invoked the rule of the majority and I have always tried to prevent a tyranny by the minority.

This committee has operated on a democratic basis. The debate has been welcomed. As to the statement that only 4 of of the 50 witnesses came from the Reform submissions, it is a misstatement of the true facts and the true facts will emerge later as we review the records.

This chair has not disregarded the rules of the committee or of the House, nor has it stifled debate. Be it said that it was the official opposition who proposed the motion to limit debate on clause-by-clause and that motion was sustained by the majority rule of the committee. On several occasions when the member of the Reform Party tried to raise several points of order, and even challenged the rulings of the chair, the rules of the chair at all times were sustained by the committee itself. It will also be the pleasure of this committee to submit a report to the House at a later date.

Secondly, as to the prayers of the Reform Party, as to what he would like to happen, at this point I would just like to beg the indulgence of the committee in the interest of the time we have to ask the minister on the estimates. I would just like to state in conclusion that the allegations that the deputy leader for the Reform Party made this morning have been without any foundation. He did not reintroduce any evidence; therefore we have here a situation of allegations that he would like to be true, and yet there is no evidence.

On that note, I am prepared as the chair to suggest to you that we put it to a vote, as Mr. Dromisky was trying to suggest earlier.

Mr. Dromisky: The question.

The Chair: Would you read the motion, please?

The Clerk of the Committee: The motion is that this committee condemn the chairman for his undemocratic and unparliamentary conduct during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64.

Mr. Strahl: Could we have a recorded vote on that?

Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 2

The Chair: I would now like to proceed to examine the Minister of Justice on the estimates, and I usually invite the minister to give his opening remarks - Mr. Minister.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice): I promise to have no motions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: It's a big relief, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Rock: I must attend a Cabinet meeting this morning at 10 o'clock. I must therefore leave at 10:15, but I am available to answer questions. I first have a few very brief remarks to make, only to say that I am very happy to be here for the examination by the Committee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's main estimates.

I know that Mr. Yalden, the Chairman of the commission, has already testified to discuss the main estimates and to answer the Committee's questions. I only want to make a few brief remarks and I will be happy to answer your questions after that.

.0920

[English]

I should also observe at the outset that this is National Access Awareness Week in Canada. As members of the committee know, National Access Awareness Week is a community-based initiative with hundreds of activities taking place across Canada. It's intended to raise awareness and promote understanding of the need to remove barriers for those who are disabled.

The theme this year focuses on learning, in schools, the community, in work, in ways that remove barriers. I know that is one of the objectives of this committee in its work, Mr. Chairman, and I join with members of the committee in welcoming this week for that purpose.

During the past 12 months since my last appearance before this committee, the government has been active in a number of areas in relation to human rights. Before referring to them, may I speak to perhaps the most significant, outstanding obligation of the government in this regard, which is the intention to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Members of the committee who were participants last year will recall that I referred to that matter then as well. We have not yet introduced those amendments, but we intend to do so.

The amendments that we intend to put before the House, Mr. Chairman, involve not just adding sexual orientation as a ground upon which discrimination is prohibited in section 3, but also to improve the statute in a variety of other ways: to provide for employers an express duty of accommodation of the disabled; to deal with the adverse-effect discrimination they face in the workplace, a duty that will have to be honoured up to the point of undue hardship; to change, by amending the act, the reporting relationship of the commission so that it would file its reports directly with Parliament rather than through me - a symbolic change perhaps, but one that would be consistent with the independence of the commission; an amendment to recognize the primacy of the Canadian Human Rights Act over other federal legislation; and the inclusion of a charter-style defence for complaints against other federal laws.

We are looking as well at the nature of the tribunal that hears issues or complaints under the human rights legislation, whether it might better serve the public as a small permanent tribunal rather than its present form. I've asked regularly just when the government will present these amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and I respond recently that I'm not able to commit to a date, but merely to reaffirm the commitment, which I know is not sufficient for some.

I do point out, Mr. Chairman, that the agenda of Parliament is crowded with justice issues that remain outstanding. In this coming month of June alone, we hope to bring to a vote and third-reading debate Bill C-68, with respect to firearms; Bill C-41, the comprehensive amendments to the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code; and Bill C-72, dealing with self-induced intoxication as a defence in the criminal law. We are awaiting second-reading debate on Bill C-84, an act dealing with regulations, which we hope will take place in June. The Senate is seized of Bill C-37, on which topic I'm to testify before the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs on June 1.

We have already made outstanding commitments to introduce legislation to deal with DNA testing in the criminal law, and of course we propose in the weeks ahead to describe the changes we propose in the area of child support.

The amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will take their rightful place on the agenda of the government in fulfilment of our long-standing commitment, but they will do so in the context of a crowded justice agenda in which we are moving forward with the government's overall policies in terms of legislation.

After the amendments are before the House, it seems to me it will also be timely to look more broadly, perhaps in a second phase of human rights reform, at the role of the commission itself. Finally, in the second phase of this work, I would like to see the Commission play a more proactive role.

.0925

[Translation]

Currently, the Commission often waits for a complaint to be filed. When a complaint is filed, the Commission may only deal with the case of the individual involved. We should ask ourselves if it would be possible and desirable that the Commission deal in the first place with discriminatory barriers, without having to wait for a complaint to be filed and, following that, that it deals with the problem in a more systemic way.

[English]

Let me touch briefly upon a variety of other areas where the government has focused on human rights in recent months, and permit me to begin with the justice system itself in which issues of gender equality remain to be dealt with.

I turn first to the appointment of judges, and may I say that of the 964 federally appointed judges sitting now in Canada, only 139 or 14.4% are women. This is a record that must be improved upon, Mr. Chairman. Since January 1994, of the 78 appointments made by the federal government, 27 have been women and 51 have been men. This marks a gradual improvement. In 1992, 23% of the appointments made by the federal government were women; in 1993, 17%; in 1994 and 1995, 31% of the appointments were women.

In time we will work towards a greater and equal involvement of women in the federal judiciary, keeping always as our objective to appoint persons who are best able to discharge those responsibilities. But we're aware of the need to achieve a greater gender equality in the bench, and we are working towards it.

The second aspect in which gender equality in the justice system has arisen is in relation to violence by men against women. In that context we have proposed a number of changes, principally in the criminal law, to deal with that matter. Bill C-42, which has now been proclaimed in force, contains changes, including those to the peace bond provisions, that will assist women who are the victims of abuse in the domestic context. Bill C-72, which as I mentioned is before the House - before committee actually at the moment - will deal with the issue of self-induced intoxication as a potential defence, and that has particular application to crimes of violence by men against women.

Canada was recently represented at, and it was my honour to participate in, the 9th United Nations conference on crime prevention in Cairo at which Canada sponsored a resolution on violence against women, a resolution that was adopted with a record 55 co-sponsors, a resolution in respect of which we had outstanding support and assistance from non-governmental organizations from Canada who accompanied us on the trip, calling for a worldwide initiative to deal with violence by men against women.

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that women in Canada will not achieve the equality they are guaranteed under our constitutional document unless they can do so in a society that deals effectively with the disproportionate effect of violence upon women and indeed children.

May I mention briefly as well that the Court Challenges Program has now been re-established to provide assistance to those who seek equality and who seek to have the determination by the court of the application of equality principles in the charter. May I refer to the initiatives in the area of aboriginal justice in which the Department of Justice, working with aboriginal communities and often with provincial governments, have established pilot projects to look at ways to make the justice system, particularly the criminal justice system, more effective for aboriginal peoples. I refer to our participation in a number of international covenants for human rights in a variety of forums in which Canada continues to be an active participant.

[Translation]

I want to take a moment to underline the recent anniversary of section 15 of the Charter dealing with the protection of equality rights.

.0930

Section 15 has been in effect for 10 years now. During that time, the law changed a great deal. Section 15 was a catalyst for changes in the law and in our policies, so that they would reflect not only the letter of the law, but also its spirit.

[English]

The recent judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada last week, in Egan, in Thibaudeau, and in Miron have provided us with a better understanding of the court's approach to these principles in particular circumstances.

I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, with a brief reference to a matter that you yourself have brought forth for public attention and that is the question of hate and expressions of hatred on the information highway or the Internet. You spoke eloquently on March 31 in the House of Commons in introducing your motion calling upon the government to deal with these matters, putting it to parliamentarians that we now had to choose whether it was going to be a highway of hate or a highway of harmony, and inviting us to deal with the complex legal and policy questions that these matters give rise to.

You made reference in the course of your remarks to the Information Highway Advisory Council, established by the Minister of Industry to study, for the government, policy implications arising from the use of high technology in communications. As you pointed out, that advisory council, with the participation of a lawyer from the Department of Justice, is looking at the capacity of the law to deal with the challenges you described. The issues you brought to public notice through your motion are very much on the minds of the government and its departments, and we are working with the advisory council to devise means for dealing with those questions.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I think I can safely say we have made strides towards our goal of equality, but of course, we still have a long way to go.

I hope that as we will make progress in our efforts to amend our legislation and policies, we will keep that goal in mind and be inspired by it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming to our committee and for giving us a briefing of the initiatives and the evolving initiatives that your department is pursuing. I would like to ask Mr. Ménard to start the questioning.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You must have been flattered by the kind words the minister had for you. We were all very touched.

There are three specific points I wish to broach with the minister: first, what he plans to do about the Nesbit-Egan ruling; secondly, his slowness in tabling amendments to the legislation; and finally, the worrisome cuts at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has caused a considerable slowdown of its operations.

For my first question, I would like to ask the minister what his interpretation is of the ruling. The gay community had two ways of seeing it. One was total devastation, because in reality, the applicants were dismissed by the court and therefore there wasn't even a hint of recognizing same sex spouses. On the positive side, however, paragraph 15(1) now includes sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination.

I would like to ask the minister two questions on that point. What does he plan to do on the political front, now that we have the ruling?. Secondly, as the minister knows, the matter is now being discussed in the House of Commons, which I am thrilled about, since it was prompted by a motion I tabled. Does the minister plan on doing anything to prolong the debate? Does he plan on participating in the private members business, just like his colleague from Indian Affairs, when we study a private member's motion? Does he feel that this morning he can give us his government's position on the motion and on the recognition of same sex spouses? That is my first questions. I will then deal with the two others.

.0935

[English]

Mr. Rock: First, the judgment of this court last week speaks for itself, of course, and I don't represent myself as a constitutional scholar able to bring additional insight to the analysis of those judgments. There were a number of judgments expressing different positions on the principal points in issue. It's very difficult to generalize, but I think some observations can be made, even at this short distance, from the receipt of the judgments.

As my honourable colleague knows, there were nine judges participating in the decision. All nine of them acknowledged that sexual orientation was so-called ``analogous ground'' for the purposes of section 15 of the charter, which is the first time the Supreme Court of Canada made such a finding.

Five of the nine judges concluded that there was discrimination on the facts of this case. In this case it was the definition of ``spouse'' that they found discriminatory. Four said there was no discrimination in that respect, but of the five who found discrimination, one of them, Mr. Justice Sopinka, went on to say in a recent analysis that section 1 of the charter saved this legislation in the circumstances of this case notwithstanding a prima facie infringement or discrimination under section 15.

In the course of the judgment given by Mr. Justice Sopinka on this point, which is to say that the legislation, although discriminatory, can stand, His Lordship took into account, among other things, the fact that in his view the recognition of same sex relationships is a relatively novel concept. I think those are the words His Lordship used.

As well, he said Parliament should be given time to adjust the policy and substance of legislation to that relatively novel concept. While there might have been on its face a discrimination in the definition of spouse, because it did not include same sex couples, nonetheless, the legislation should stand and Parliament should be given the opportunity to move incrementally toward changes in legislation that will take such societal realities into account.

Now, if the committee will forgive my oversimplification, that as I understand it is the substance of the judgment.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Minister, I know three things about you: you are a lawyer, you like jogging and you have a lot of influence in Cabinet.

Can you tell us this morning if, as an individual and as Minister, you support the recognition of same sex spouses? Will you do anything on the political front? Will you speak to the motion before the House? What is your position?

I know that when you speak, you commit the government, but it is quite ironical. You say it is a new concept. Perhaps the bench can say it, but you recognize that this is something that it is an issue which has been discussed for years, that it is a major social issue.

The unfortunate irony that affects both of us, 1 as a militant and member of Parliament, and you as Minister, if that the matter has not been raised on the floor of the House. We now have the opportunity to discuss the issue and to prolong the debate. We have a vote on a motion before the House. As Minister, what is your position on that motion? Do you think that we, as legislators, must give the bench clear instructions, mainly that this 35th Parliament wants same sex spouses to be recognized, and is that what you want yourself?

[English]

Mr. Rock: I think it's best for me to say that the commitment I've made is a commitment on behalf of the government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited. That's not new, I know, but it is constant.

As to my approach to the issue of relationship recognition, particularly for purposes of federal legislation, I continue to believe that this subject is best approached in terms of relationships rather than sexuality. As I suggested last year before this very committee, I think it might be a more useful point of departure for us to examine the relevance of relationships, whether they be sexual or not, in determining, for example, whether benefits are to be extended or whether such relationships have to be recognized for social or other purposes.

Let me speak more plainly. A great number of Canadians live together in relationships that don't involve a sexual element - siblings, adult children and aging parents, friends. In other words, personal relationships -

.0940

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You realize you cannot make that comparison.

[English]

Mr. Rock: Sometimes yes. No. Forgive me. Let me finish, because -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You cannot make that comparison, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Rock: I think, with respect, that same sex relationships are but one kind of relational interdependency that may be relevant for legislative purposes. There may be all kinds of other personal relationships that are relevant because of emotional or economic interdependency.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Of course.

[English]

Mr. Rock: You've asked for my view.

In my respectful view, rather than getting into the question of spouse and family, and how we define family, and what our own personal views of all these sacred words are, it's better to look at this question: is there a relationship there that is relevant for the purposes of drafting legislation to recognize economic interdependencies? I think that's a more constructive context in which to put the issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about human rights, but I would like to remind the Minister that I am fully aware of the fact that, legally speaking, this is first and foremost a society with an increasing number of single people and all sorts of circumstances that lead people to live together, for economic reasons and for mutual support.

We are now at a legal crossroads, where the term ``spouse'' will have to be defined. Two sisters or two brothers living together cannot claim to be spouses. The legal notion of spouse presupposes three elements: cohabitation, which exists in other circumstances as well; common knowledge, being defined, seen and defining oneself as spouses in the immediate community; and mutual support. We will have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and I would like to think you are fully aware of the urgency of the situation, being familiar with this matter.

I would like to talk now about amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even though your performance as a minister is quite commendable in terms of the bills you presented, there's nonetheless cause for concern. Outsiders do not understand your procrastination or why you don't take more initiative on the human rights issue. You have been minister for nearly two years now. There were promises in the Red Book and your party made commitments during the election campaign.

Why is it that your party, who had John Turner as Justice Minister who implemented some very specific measures for human rights, is now humming and hawing so much in 1995? I know you have to deal with some recalcitrant caucus members, but can you make a commitment to this Committee this morning that by the end of this session you will table amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act? We are entitled to expect that. Why all the shilly-shallying? You have the Parliament's support and you have the credibility to allow you to act. Why don't you do something before the end of the session?

[English]

Mr. Rock: First of all, I don't agree that it's necessary to define spouse. I don't think that's the only way to deal with this issue.

I think it might be possible to draft legislation that doesn't speak of spouses, that speaks instead of relationships. That's my very point. Why should we consume a decade or more debating the definition of words that have such power to excite deeply held feelings about family when we might be able to deal with the issue more constructively -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: By being bold.

[English]

Mr. Rock: - by talking about relationships instead of spouses?

I disagree that's the only way to deal with this issue. Indeed, I hope before this is all over we will have a public discussion about personal relationships and their relevance to the preparation of laws, and maybe that will provide us with a better solution.

As to the thrust of the question, Mr. Chairman, why not yet and when, in relation to the Canadian Human Rights Act, I answer ``why not yet'' by saying maybe if we had started with that, things would have been different, but we didn't. We started with other bills that have engaged me completely. I've referred to three of them that are before the House right now, in respect of which there's a great deal for me to do, in the Commons, in committee and with the public, and, frankly, with the three bills I have that are coming to a vote in June in the House, I am fully engaged.

.0945

As to when, I'm not prepared to give a commitment that I'll do it before the end of June. I'll say we have a commitment from the government to do it, but once before I gave a commitment on a time that I did not comply with, to my embarrassment, and I promised myself I would not do that again.

I ask my honourable colleague to accept that we are committed to the amendment and we will bring it forward when we think it's an appropriate time to do so. But one of the factors we take into account in determining timing is just what the House has on its plate. At the moment, I don't think anyone would complain that Justice has not provided the House with matters to debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: So, what you are asking from us is a leap of faith.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chair, is my elapsed?

[English]

The Chair: Your time has elapsed.

I will give the floor to Mr. Hanger, should he wish to pose a question.

Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Sir, have you looked at any polls or gathered any evidence as to how Canadians feel about adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act?

Mr. Rock: I have not done any polling, but I think I've seen the results of polling done by others. My memory of it is vague, but my general memory is that there is broad support for the simple proposition -

Mr. Hanger: For the inclusion?

Mr. Rock: - that we shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of orientation.

Mr. Hanger: I have to reflect back to your gun control proposals, Mr. Rock. I know that you cited many polls to support this misguided gun control bill. I'm surprised that you're not citing polls now to support the inclusion of this particular item, sexual orientation, into the Human Rights Act and into Bill C-44.

Let me tell you that the majority of Canadians do not agree with the inclusion, and I believe you're stepping into uncharted ground here by continuing to push. So why do you insist on including sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and in Bill C-44 when in fact the majority of Canadians don't agree with you?

Mr. Rock: First of all, in terms of the matter of polls, it's true to say I often refer to polls in relation to gun control, but not in the sense that the bill was introduced because the polls favour it.

My reference to polls arises when the legitimacy of the bill is challenged, when people tell me there is no support, 6,000 people marched in Fredericton, 5,000 marched in Wainwright, the entire responsible firearms owners of Alberta are against it, and I'm operating without legitimacy. In response to those contentions, I refer to the fact that the vast majority of Canadians support our proposals. It's not the reason we brought the legislation forward, but it's a response I muster in the face of allegations that we're acting contrary to the wishes of the Canadian people. That's the first thing.

The second thing, which is quite consistent with that position, is I don't think you can govern based on polls. I don't think you can determine what your next step is going to be by taking polls, and I know you agree with that. Obviously, we have to have a decent respect for the opinions of people, and we have to remember that this is a democracy and there should be some element of consensus.

My honourable friend has suggested we're getting into uncharted territory, but may I remind him that eight provinces and territories have had the words ``sexual orientation'' in their human rights legislation for many years, in some cases going back to the mid-1970s. This is hardly uncharted territory. If anything, the federal government is working to catch up with what has gone on before in provinces.

Furthermore, for the last 10 years, since 1985, the courts have held that the federal statute must be construed as though the words already appear there. So it's hardly breathtaking or adventurous for us to suggest that the act might be amended, first to bring it into conformity with what's already in place in eight of the other jurisdictions in this country, and second, to merely include something the courts have already read into it as a matter of form.

I think on this question of fundamental justice, if we had to go to the people and poll, I would suggest the vast majority of Canadians would agree that someone shouldn't be discriminated against only on the basis of their sexual orientation. A person shouldn't be fired from a job because she is lesbian or denied accommodation because he's gay. I think Canadians would agree that's not right.

.0950

Mr. Hanger: What you state, Mr. Minister, really raises more questions. If the courts are telling you, particularly, that there should be laws regulating such things as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do you believe that the courts or Parliament should be the source of law in Canada? Are you saying you would look first to the courts as the deciding factor in our law, or to the people of Canada through their elected representatives?

Mr. Rock: The Charter of Rights is the supreme law of the land, and I think whatever law we pass has to be consistent with it. It so happens that the courts have the role of examining legislation when it's challenged to determine whether it's consistent with the charter. If it's not, then it's invalid.

As an example, look at the drunkenness defence. Last September 30 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a judgment saying the common law rule - this wasn't even legislation - that held that extreme self-induced intoxication was not a defence to crimes of general intent was inconsistent with charter principles. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down that rule and said it could not stand.

In the face of that judgment the government looked at the charter principles, examined the social reality, and then prepared and introduced legislation that would change that result in a fashion that we believe is consistent with the Constitution. So there you have a good example of the way the courts do their job and the government does its own job, but they're very different responsibilities.

Mr. Hanger: The rest of the scenario then is who are you listening to? Are you listening to the special interests that say this is what the law should be, or are you listening to, bottom line, the Canadian people, again through their elected representatives in Parliament, saying they do not agree, bottom line, with your statement about inclusion?

Mr. Rock: As to who we're listening to, in the case of the drunkenness defence, we listened -

Mr. Hanger: Let's forget about the drunkenness defence and talk about the inclusion of sexual orientation.

Mr. Rock: Among other things, the government is comprised of the Liberal Party, which is a political organization with its own policies. The policy of the Liberal Party, as determined at policy conventions when its members meet and vote, is for inclusion. So we're reflecting the policy of the party; the policy of the government on which we campaigned and were elected.

Mr. Hanger: And not the people in the country then?

Mr. Rock: I don't see a distinction -

Mr. Hanger: I think there is a distinction.

Mr. Rock: The Catholic Church in its new catechism says that discrimination should not take place on the basis of sexual orientation. So that's part of the people too. Churches have said that for many years. Provincial governments say that. Those are the people.

I guess we all have our own perspectives on what the people think and what the people want, but this government has policies and commitments and intends to honour them.

Mr. Hanger: What's more important to you, equality of opportunity or equality of result?

Mr. Rock: I'm not sure what you mean.

Mr. Hanger: In reference to the employment equity program, you can provide opportunities for everyone if the program is directed at a business or even a government, but who should they select? Should it be those who are most appropriate or those who are maybe selected as a result of their disabilities or the colour of their skin? Looking at the bottom line, what should the result of that selection be?

Mr. Rock: In terms of employment equity federally, I think the result should be a workforce that is representative. The result should be that we honour principles of equity. Obviously you want the best person for the job, and I'm not sure the principles are mutually exclusive. I would think it's possible for us to acknowledge and accept that we want to involve and include people and make workplaces representative of society in general, but at the same time we want to get the best people for the job on the merit principle. I don't conclude that those two principles are mutually exclusive.

.0955

Mr. Hanger: Have you studied any of the reasons why the State of California is now abandoning its employment equity laws?

Mr. Rock: No, I haven't.

Mr. Hanger: So you have no idea what we're embarking upon by including such things as the employment equity law here in Canada, when many south of the border are scrapping the whole program due to whatever problems. Have you not studied that?

Mr. Rock: That's a very different question.

I haven't studied what's gone on in California, but then I'm not sure that's the place we should take our leadership from.

I do know what we're planning, because I participated in caucus and cabinet discussions when we prepared the bill that was brought forward.

I would say that California is one of the places I would least look to for guidance on such issues.

The Chair: Would the two of you like to divide your time?

Mr. Maloney: I'm just wondering if we could request that the justice minister return. I know he has at leave to 10 o'clock and it's 10 o'clock now. I think there are many members of the committee who would like to pose questions to Mr. Rock.

Mr. Rock: I'd be happy to, sure.

Mr. Maloney: The Reform members have used up 50% of the time allotted to us. We have not had a fair opportunity for questions and we would like to do so.

Mr. Rock: I'd be happy to come back.

The Chair: Okay. Do you have to leave us now, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Rock: If I'm coming back, maybe I can, if that's all right.

Mr. Dromisky: We have a series of questions to ask him.

The Chair: If he is to come back, then we might as well excuse the minister at this time and not cut him off in the middle.

I know you can stay until about 10:15, right?

Mr. Rock: Right.

The Chair: If the two government members would like to pose their questions now and if there is still unfinished business with the minister, then we can invite him back to the committee at a future date.

Mr. Dromisky first and then Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Rock. We really appreciate the comments you've made this morning, giving us a little more insight into the kind of role you have to play and the tasks and burdens of your office.

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to make a comment regarding polls. Most of the polls that have come across my desk regarding sexual orientation in the past three or four months are very suspect. As far as reliability of the results and validity of the results are concerned, they are extremely biased in most cases.

I'm hoping the minister's office will be very cautious in listening to the so-called people involved in the presentation of these polls. Many of them are based on ignorance, fear, and fear mongering. We have to be very careful in how we interpret the results of those polls and where they're coming from, in light of the kind of biases that are built within them. That's my comment relating to polls.

However, getting back to employment equity, Mr. Minister, are there any guidelines in effect in your ministry at the present time, any directives that you have shared with your key personnel, pertaining to employment equity?

Mr. Rock: Do you mean in the Department of Justice's own hiring policies?

Mr. Dromisky: Yes.

Mr. Rock: Yes. We've taken a number of steps in Justice to try to achieve a greater representation of societal groups in the workforce in Justice. We've made some improvements in recent years. We haven't yet achieved what we think is the right result, but we're working toward it.

For example, women make up 42.6% of the lawyers in the department, which compares with 27.2% of women as a percentage of all lawyers in the profession in Ontario. Women represent 61.3% of the total departmental workforce, as compared with 47.5% for the public service overall. Some 69.1% of the employees in the administrative and foreign service category are women, as compared with 48% of the public service, and 86.1% of the employees in the technical category are women, as compared with 18.6% in the public service.

The representation of women in the management stream of the law group has increased from 20% to 23.4% in one year. We're making efforts to involve women more in the management and direction of the department.

.1000

We've also approved and communicated to all employees the departmental policies on alternative working arrangements, to provide some flexibility in the workplace that will allow employees to balance their work and the rest of their lives, and help managers deal with the diverse and changing workforce while respecting their own budgetary constraints.

We've offered training programs on a regular basis for the career development of support staff. From November 1989 to March 1995, there were dozens of sessions of time management, communications skills, and presentation skills.

In terms of persons with disabilities, the representation of persons with disabilities in the department is not sufficient. In fact, the representation of persons with disabilities has decreased from 55 to 49 over the last 15 months. Two percent of the total department are persons with disabilities. We've taken some special initiatives to improve the representation of persons with disabilities.

Am I answering your question?

Mr. Dromisky: Yes, you are. In fact, I could interject by simply asking if it's out of order or if it's possible for the ministry to share that information with members of the committee. You're giving some very critical and positive kind of information that is essential, I think.

Mr. Rock: Okay. I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I would now like to yield the floor to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you. I just have three areas to ask about, Mr. Minister.

In view of the adverse ruling against Mrs. Thibaudeau, are you planning or is there anything under way either with your department, the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Revenue to consider legislation that might correct, alter, or amend the decision?

Mr. Rock: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Supreme Court of Canada last week determined the constitutional validity of the present tax scheme, but, as my hon. colleague knows, the issue is far broader than just a lawyers' issue. It's an issue of fairness, and many people perceive the present system as unfair.

Sheila Finestone, along with David Walker and Georgette Sheridan, spent two or three months last summer and fall going across the country listening to Canadians speak about their experiences with the present system with respect to child support. They concluded that there was a lot of room for improvement through change.

I've been working with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Revenue, Sheila Finestone, and the Minister of Human Resources Development in preparing proposals for caucus and cabinet with respect to child support generally. This is not just the tax side, but also guidelines to determine amounts of child support and also measures to enhance enforcement of child support orders once they're made. We hope in the weeks ahead, and before the House rises, to be able to announce what changes we have in mind in respect of all those three areas.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you.

In view of your comments on gender balance on the bench being roughly overall 14.4% representative of women - and I commend you for your efforts certainly to increase that ratio - we've been kicking around the terms ``quotas'' and ``numerical goals'' in our consideration of the employment equity law. What percentage do we have in the pool from which you may draw for appointments to the bench for females? What percentage are they in respect of the overall pool nationally? In 1994-95, you had 31% appointments from females. Where does that percentage stand vis-à-vis the overall pool? I know you must have requirements for experience in efforts like this.

Mr. Rock: I don't know, but I can find out and let you know. If I had to guess, I would say my best estimate would be that between 20% and 25% of the pool of candidates approved by provincial committees and eligible for consideration are women. Let me find out and let you know.

Mr. Maloney: My last area of questioning is this. In an era of declining resources and with the necessity to cut back on our social programs, can we really afford at this stage your suggestion that we base benefits in terms of relationship between partners? It may be fair and equitable, but in the name of this game, can we really afford to expand the parameters of who may qualify?

Mr. Rock: I'm not sure, but I think it may be something worth looking at. I'm not sure we should assume going in that it is always going to mean more money being paid out. Sometimes it may mean less.

.1005

If, for example, there are two siblings living together, one of whom takes financial responsibility for the other who falls ill, maybe it's appropriate for the government to take into account the income and resources of the caregiver in determining obligations to the other person. In other words, if we recognize some of these relationships, we might relieve the government of responsibilities it would otherwise have if we counted them only as individuals. I think it might cut both ways; I'm not sure. I think we're just on the threshold of this issue. I cannot claim to have examined it thoroughly. I think the point you make is one well worth considering. If we conclude, after looking at it, a massive increase in government expenditures would be involved, then obviously that has to be taken into account.

Mr. Maloney: I yield the floor, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. The chair would like to pose one question, Mr. Minister. Have you given any thought to the role this committee might play in the development of some of these legislative initiatives that you intend to pursue, with respect to child support, for example, as well as the rights of the child insofar as international covenants are concerned and our immigration laws and deportation proceedings that may ensue from such immigration law? Do you see any role for our committee?

Mr. Rock: Certainly, in relation to the Human Rights Act amendments I expect they would be referred here after second reading in the House for detailed consideration. In terms of child support, I think this would involve amendments to the Divorce Act, perhaps the Income Tax Act, if that's what the government decided, but that might be something that would go to the justice committee. But certainly this committee has a continuing interest, I would think, with reference to our international covenants on human rights, including rights of the child. I would have thought this committee would be involved in considering those matters.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We have five minutes to go. Mr. Ménard, would you like to -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the discussion I had earlier with the Minister. I did not understand the position that he - I do not want the Minister to feel I'm being too insistent, and I do not want to bother him, because I know he has his fair share of problems in life, but I would like to take advantage of his presence here this morning to try to find out if he will participate in the debate on my motion. And if he is confident that this debate could ultimately be extended. I would like to know what his position will be. I am not asking the ``lawyer'' side of his personality, but instead the human side.

[English]

Mr. Rock: It may be that upon taking up my present line of work I forfeited my status as a human being. There is increasing evidence to that effect but I'm not sure we should come at it from that direction.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult for me to express a view beyond what I've expressed in terms of the government's policy. On the subject of the hon. member's motion, if I was able to participate - and I don't know the date it's coming up in the House for further discussion - I might well -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Next Thursday.

Mr. Rock: This week's Thursday or next Thursday?

Mr. Ménard: This week's Thursday. We have set time for you, of course. As for me, I am ready. I can defer my motion to a later date if that is more convenient for you. I am ready when you are.

Mr. Rock: That is very nice of you, sir.

Mr. Ménard: It's my pleasure.

Mr. Rock: If I have the opportunity to participate in the discussion in the House of Commons, I would probably say, like I said today, that the study of this issue should focus on personal and not only sexual relationships. It should be more general.

As I said, I'm not sure if I will be there; I hope to be, but we will see.

Mr. Ménard: At any rate, Mr. Minister, you know that we're going to continue to discuss these issues. You realize that we would not imagine holding a debate like that without your participation, not only because of your personal qualities, but also because of your credibility.

Having said that, I would like to raise a third issue with you. I am somewhat concerned about the cuts to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

.1010

Later, we will have the pleasure of talking to Mr. Yalden, but things seem to indicate that there will be no one left in the regional offices. Before agreeing to the cuts imposed by Cabinet, did your department conduct verifications or impact studies on the Commission's ability to fulfill its mandate in the future?

Mr. Rock: Yes, we studied the effects of the budgetary changes and, as the honourable member mentioned, Mr. Yalden will be here later on this morning to discuss these issues in detail. He's here now in fact. Hello!

I know that

[English]

the total budget has been reduced from last year's estimate of 16.9 million to this year's estimate of 16.4 million. The main estimates indicate that the number of personnel will not be reduced from the current total of 211 but that the regional offices will be reduced in size significantly and investigations would be conducted more by head office personnel. Obviously, given the importance of human rights, it would be ideal if no cuts were necessary and if in fact we were able to add to the resources available to Mr. Yalden in his important work, but the fact is that all operations of government are affected by the fiscal realities in which we're operating, and I won't take the committee's time to elaborate on matters that are obvious.

The commission, as an independent body, has made its own judgment as to how it should reorganize its affairs to take into account the reduction in resources. Mr. Yalden, based on his experience and his wisdom, has chosen to reorganize the manner in which his regional offices operate. I have every confidence that he will be able to discharge the responsibilities of his mandate even with the recent budget.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: But what study Mr. Minister? Could the Committee have a copy of the impact studies your department conducted? I imagine that when Cabinet or the government decides to impose cuts, it considers the consequences for a commission as important as the Human Rights Commission.

So did you department conduct any impact studies?

Mr. Rock: No, we did not conduct any formal studies on the impact of these budgetary changes.

Mr. Ménard: You did not do any, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Rock: No.

Mr. Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Hanger: I have one quick question Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Rock, the immigration minister often tells us that immigrants outperform native-born Canadians in the workforce. Are you in favour of excluding immigrants from employment equity since they obviously don't need it?

Mr. Rock: No, I think the proposals as they stand at present are the right ones and I support them.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you, Mr. Minister, and rest assured that you have remained very much a human being with a human heart.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chair, I will deal with your office in determining another date when I can come back and answer other questions.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you again so much. We will now recess.

.1015

PAUSE

.1018

The Chair: I would like to resume the proceedings of our committee, which is examining the estimates. We have before us Mr. Yalden of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At this point, Mr. Yalden, I'd just like to extend my apologies because I have to bring greetings to the National Access Awareness Week ceremonies at city hall by about 10:30 a.m. So I will excuse myself in about ten minutes, and I have asked Mr. Bob Wood, our vice-chair, to assume the chairmanship at that time.

Mr. Yalden, you may want to proceed with your opening remarks.

Mr. Max Yalden (Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have very brief remarks to make. I'm very happy to be back here with you to, as I understand, review the operations of the commission, particularly the impact of the budget cuts on our activities, which I understand some members wish to discuss. Of course, if there are other issues that members wish to raise I would try to deal with them as well.

The members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, are very well aware that we, the commission, have a two-pronged mandate to protect Canadians from discrimination in the first place and, secondly, to promote equality rights through public education and information programs.

In the context of protection, our main objective is to provide the public with the best service we can and to investigate discrimination complaints in a timely and effective manner.

.1020

Over the past several years we think we've made a good deal of progress in that regard. At the present time, for example, our backlog stands at just under 600 cases, which is down from something like 1,150 a few years ago. We are using an expedited procedure for most new cases, and therefore we've also reduced the time it takes to complete new investigations.

[Translation]

In terms of our mandate to promote human rights, we make every possible effort, in spite of our limited resources in that area, to inform the public on the work done by the Commission and on general issues related to human rights. In 1994, for example, an impressive number of foldouts, brochures and other publications issued by the Commission have been distributed to individuals and organizations throughout Canada.

We also had meetings with many community groups, groups of employers and groups of individuals interested in human rights. Moreover, we answered to over 800 inquiries and interviews with the media.

Obviously, all these activities have been affected by budget cuts. During the period between the 1993-1994 and 1997-1998 fiscal years, our budget will have been cut by some $3.4 million, which represents 21% of that budget.

[English]

In an effort to absorb these reductions, we have taken a number of cost-cutting measures over the past several years. Three years ago, when the first major cuts were announced, we imposed strict control measures; for example, on overtime and on temporary help. The following year we amalgamated our national capital office with our headquarters and we made changes to our complaints process that resulted in savings over time. A number of headquarters positions were abolished. Some were also done away with in the regions. We virtually froze all permanent staffing, except for appointments of surplus commission employees.

But these cuts have had an increasing cumulative effect and by earlier this year it was clear that any attempt to continue cost cutting on a piecemeal basis could not really absorb the entire shortfall. Therefore, we decided to do the one thing we believed we could do without significantly affecting efficiency of service, and that was to consolidate the complaints function, the investigation of complaints, the treatment of complaints, at headquarters in Ottawa. This would allow us to maintain the other functions of outreach to the community, of contact with interest groups, employers and individuals, and at the same time to cut back on administration costs, for example, on rental costs, and by transferring certain investigators' positions to Ottawa - about 14 or 15 - to maintain this service.

I need hardly add to this committee that this was not a decision that was taken lightly, but in our view it was our best option given the constraints that were imposed upon us.

In brief, and in conclusion, what I would like to underline for the committee is that the cuts we're talking about were not of our making, but that we do not see any point in further complaining about them. Our views on the matter are well known. We must now try to get on with the job. That is just what we will be doing on the complaint side, on employment equity, on pay equity and on information and education programs. I very much hope that our efforts will continue to pass muster.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions or try to deal with any comments that the members of the committee may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Yalden.

Before I yield the floor to Mr. Ménard, I would request that Mr. Wood take over the chair.

.1025

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thanks again, Mr. Yalden, for your remarks. We'll start the questioning with Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Yalden, I would like to raise two issues with you; although they are very delicate, we must discuss them frankly.

Over the past few days, I've received a certain number of letters. It is not a mass movement, but a certain number of letters that have concerned me to a certain extent. These letters deal with two situations that I'm going to raise with you.

The first concerns your office's expenditures, and the second is about the significant cuts to regional offices.

As regards my first question, I was told that expenditures for the chief commissioner's office went from $444,000 in 1986 to $843,000. If the question is not indiscreet, I would like you to give us an overview as to the number of people who work in your office. Is it true that you still have a chauffeur, Mr. Yalden?

Mr. Yalden: The question is not at all indiscreet. The information that the honourable member has just mentioned and which come from a letter written by a former employee of the Commission...

Mr. Ménard: You are identifying the source.

Mr. Yalden: It is not me. The man in question has been sending his letter to every man and his dog, including the media. Therefore, it is not me. He in no way indicated that he wanted to keep it secret.

As far as I know, the figures in the letter are not accurate. In the Blue Book that you undoubtedly have before you, on page 11, you can see that the 1995-1996 estimates for the chief and Deputy-Chief Commissioner's offices are not roughly $800,000, but $655,000 for both offices. Almost all of this amount, or roughly 80%, goes to salaries: mine, the deputy-chief Commissioner's, and the salaries of our assistants. Including benefits, that represents $591,000 out of a total of $655,000.

There are also rather small amounts for other purposes: for example, $1,700 for hospitality, for both offices, the Deputy-Chief Commissioner's and mine; and $45,000 for travel. Incidentally, in 1994-1995, we only used $32,500, which, to me, does not seem like much for my trips and those of the Deputy-Chief Commissioner in Canada and abroad.

It is true, and I will say it before someone else says it, that some of the trips I took were paid for by the Department of Foreign Affairs or by CIDA, because my presence at a meeting or in a country was considered important for foreign policy purposes.

Our budget, for the purposes indicated, is the one that I've just given you.

If the members of the Committee would like more information on my office expenditures, on my travel expenditures or on anything else, there is no secret.

You asked me if I had a chauffeur.

.1030

I have a chauffeur working for me who has several other responsibilities. He is the office messenger. For example, he comes up to the Hill to get the Hansard, and so on. So the answer is yes, but he is not my chauffeur 100% of the time, because I don't need a chauffeur 100% of the time.

I believe that the members of the committee are aware that all deputy ministers or their offices have chauffeurs. It depends on where the office is located, etc. In our case, as was the case when I was deputy minister and Commissioner of Official Languages, there is a chauffeur who works in the office, who drives me to official meetings if he is town, but who spends at least one third, if not 50% of his time making photocopies, delivering messages, and carrying out other office duties. Does that answer the hon. member's question?

Mr. Ménard: Yes. Mr. Yalden, we must of course be disappointed in the cuts you are facing, but at present, how many regional offices and employees are there? In your opinion, how will these cuts impact on the processing of complaints? It seems to me that the commission should avoid centralizing which would result in a complaint lodged in Montreal or Halifax being processed in Ottawa, because that would result in a rather awkward situation.

I understand that as a manager, you have to deal with cuts that don't please you any more than they please the members of this committee, and you know that we have taken advantage of the review of the Employment Equity Act to express our hopes that you will receive additional resources.

I understand that our comments have not yet reached the minister, but you can count on us to continue pursuing this goal. What is happening at the regional level?

Mr. Yalden: Mr. Ménard mentioned employement equity. There cannot be any cuts there. On the contrary, we have received new responsibilities. We cannot cut our complaint services here at headquarters, because it is the center of our activities. We cannot cut our legal staff, because we do not go before the courts. We do go to court when someone insists on it. But we must have lawyers because there are disputes. We cannot cut our small policy and research service. There are only four people in it, and there is no point in cutting there.

We have already cut our administrative services, and will continue to do so, bucause we will need fewer people with the cuts in the regions. At headquarters, we have also cut our administrative services. The only realistic possibility was to make cuts in the regions.

How much are we going to save? We are going to save roughly $460,000 in rent annually and roughly $1.2 million in personnel and operating expenditures, for a total of roughly $1.7 million. It was the only way to save this amount.

Mr. Ménard: How many regional offices are left? Are there any left?

Mr. Yalden: There will be the same number of regional offices, that is one in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnepeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. The newspapers mentioned something about our closing these offices. I responded to the editorials written in some cases. In the case of letters from our former employees, I frankly did not think it was a good idea to get into a debate with a former employee in any newspaper; so I remained silent.

So firstly, we are not closing any offices. Secondly, we are not just going to have a 1-800 number; these offices will be staffed. For example, there will be three officers in Montreal, which, in passing, makes it more or less the same size as the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

.1035

In the past, our offices have been larger than theirs. At any rate, we will have three people in Montreal, three in Toronto, in principle, and two in each of the smaller offices.

We are going to rent receptionists and telephone operator services in cooperation with other people with whom we are going to collocate, if I may say so. We are going to share our offices with other agencies, whether it be Immigration, the Public Service or others. We're going to try to find agencies with responsibilities similar to ours which are independent, so that there is no confusion between us and the government. We are going to collocate, which will enable us to share costs for receptionists, telephone operators and so on.

In Winnipeg, we will have two full-time employees who will be primarily responsible for meeting the public, maintaining links with community groups, doing outreach work, and dealing with people who have complaints, so that there is a personal element.

The complaint process will be transferred to Ottawa, as most complaints are already dealt with in Ottawa. For example, when we deal with the Armed Forces, National Defence or Canada Post, our largest clients, everything takes place in Ottawa. Why? Because we are centralized. There is only one person plus staff at Defence who is responsible for complaints lodged against the Armed Forces and National Defence, regardless of the region involved, and the same is true for Canada Post.

We don't believe that face-to-face meetings are necessary in most cases. Moreover, in most cases, information requests and conversations concerning the complaints come in by phone or in writing. There are not long line-ups of people in our offices requesting to see our officers every day of the week.

We believe that we shall have enough people to deal with the complaints efficiently, and in a sensitive and personal way. When we absolutely need to send someone from Ottawa to deal with the case, we will do so. We will continue to monitor the system to ensure that it operates smoothly and that it does not harm the people who come to us for assistance.

Mr. Ménard: If I've understood correctly, Mr. Yalden -

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Mr. Ménard, your time is up. It's probably the longest five minutes you've ever had in your life.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to say goodbye to Mr. Yalden, because I must participate in the House debate on the Reform Party motion. I must leave, but I give you my regards.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): From the government side, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Yalden.

I don't mean to belabour the point, but on the issue of the chauffeur who also does clerical functions, and some legitimacy was pointed towards deputy ministers having the same privileges, I wonder - again, it's a question of perception. In times of cut-backs, members of the public are saying, how come when I'm being cut back left, right and centre - Have you ever considered the possibility of reviewing this position with a view to perhaps changing it and making it more cost-effective in any manner, by use of taxis or lower hourly rated clerical help who would otherwise have done the functions that this individual undertakes?

Mr. Yalden: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we've reviewed everything in our office, including that function, and our view is that's the most economical and effective way to do it.

.1040

Mr. Maloney: Thank you. This morning, Mr. Rock intimated that he was considering making the Canadian Human Rights Commission a permanent tribunal. Have there been studies to indicate that the cost effectiveness of a permanent tribunal would be either more or less expensive? What are your views on that from a cost point of view?

Mr. Yalden: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here for that comment. I don't imagine the minister said they were considering making the commission into a permanent tribunal. He probably said there was consideration being given to creating a permanent tribunal, as distinct from what we have now, which is a panel called the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Panel of sixty or seventy people. When there is a tribunal struck, the chairman of the panel, Mr. Norton, chooses three people.

The idea that has been floated is that instead of these sixty or seventy people, you would have ten, or a dozen, or whatever it was calculated to take. Those people would be full-time.

Would it save money? The belief is that in the first place it would be more efficient, because one of the problems with the tribunals now is that the people who serve on them are, for example, perhaps practising lawyers, perhaps university professors - professors of law, deans of law, or what have you - or people who have jobs elsewhere.

We find that a tribunal will begin, and then one of the members of the tribunal, because of other responsibilities in his or her full-time employment, can't be there on a given day. When you're trying to get together the lawyers for the respondent, the lawyers for the complainant, and these tribunal members who have other duties because they have other employment, this can be very ineffective and can drag out the tribunal for a longer time and therefore cost more money.

The belief is that it would then be more efficient and more effective and that it would cost less money. We are not in the position to calculate that, because of course we don't run the tribunals; they run independent of us. But I should think it would be a reasonably easy calculation to make. Personally, I wouldn't endorse such a change if I didn't think it would save some money.

In some of the longer and more difficult and complicated cases, like the tribunal that's looking into the pay equity complaint of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada against the Treasury Board, which has been going on for two or three years, there is another aspect, which is that it would be better on the whole if, with that very complicated type of hearing, you had some people with clear expertise in that area. You don't necessarily get that if you're working with this panel system.

I think it is clear that people believe it would be more effective. I have always been told that it would be cheaper. That would obviously have to be verified. If that weren't the case, then I would certainly think twice in the present circumstances before doing it.

Mr. Maloney: I can appreciate the concern you've expressed about the cut-backs that were imposed upon you impinging on your operations. You also indicated to us - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you felt that you could assume responsibilities for enforcement of the employment equity provisions that had been considered on the new amendments to the Employment Equity Act without needing any additional resources.

How do you reconcile the two positions?

Mr. Yalden: Mr. Chairman, the people who work on employment equity are, of course, in one section of our operations, the people who deal with complaints in another, and the people who deal with information and so on in a third.

What I said was we had and we have, roughly speaking, about 15 people working on employment equity. I said that with the increased responsibilities that were foreseen with us, we would continue to do as much as we could with 15 people. Of course, I have never said this is an ideal world, and indeed I have said the contrary. Clearly it would be better if we had more people in the sense that we would be able to cover more of the institutions, agencies, companies, departments, and so on that would be under our jurisdiction. We would be able to cover more in a shorter period of time if we had more people. The number of agencies and institutions we can cover in these audits and so on, which are foreseen in Bill C-64, as all members know, and the time it would take us to do them is strictly a function of the number of people we have. We will do the best we can with the people we've got.

.1045

I've never come to the committee or anyone else and said the Canadian Human Rights Commission and I, speaking on its behalf, don't want this responsibility unless you give us five times as many people. What I've said is that we'll do the very best we can with the number of people we've got.

I have also said one other thing, as I think members will remember from the last time I was here, and that is that there are several other agencies in Ottawa, the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission, the human resources department, to name only three that are working in the area of employment equity, and I did offer the suggestion, mildly, that someone might want to look at the personnel available there, which, as members I'm sure will know, is considerably greater than the number we have, and consider the question of whether there should be some transfer of personnel from one place to another. This would not increase the net number of people working on employment equity.

I am not in a position to do that. I am not in the Treasury Board nor the Public Service Commission, but there are people here in government who are in a position to do that and I hope they're looking at it. We, for our part, will do what we can with what we've got.

Mr. Maloney: Have you done any studies that would show the impact of this new legislation on your plate? I have concerns that you can handle it on the resources you've got, and I certainly wouldn't be averse to transferring resources from one department to perhaps your department. We don't want an ineffective administration.

Mr. Yalden: I think the answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is yes, we have. We could, I think, Mr. Hucker, provide members of the committee with how many institutions we could deal with in time period T if we add 15 people or 20, or 25, or whatever. Yes, we can live with that and I would be happy to have that sent to the clerk, if you wish.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Madam Dalphond-Guiral, do you have some questions you would like to pose to the commissioner?

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): No. I would simply like to welcome him before the Committee and to thank him for the work he has done.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Are there any more questions for the commissioner from the government side?

We do have a vote and a motion that we will deal with in a moment, but first, Mr. Yalden, I just want to thank you for coming back. I know this is your second appearance before us on the estimates and you were asked to come back. We really do appreciate you being here this morning. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your attendance.

Mr. Yalden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there's anything else anyone on the committee would like to know after further reflection, please call me or call my office and we'll try to turn up whatever we can for you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

The question this morning is on vote 15 of the estimates under Justice.

JUSTICE

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Vote 15 - Program expenditures $15,061,000

Vote 15 agreed to

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Shall I report this vote to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): We would like to suspend these hearings until 11 o'clock, when Mr. Kilgour will be appearing before us on the review of the initiatives taken by the House of Commons to serve Canadians with disabilities.

.1050

PAUSE

.1100

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): As we move on to our third witness this morning, it's our pleasure, of course, to welcome before the committee the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, David Kilgour. Mr. Kilgour is here to report on the House initiatives on disability.

Before we start with the Deputy Speaker, I just want to remind committee members that the winner of the 1995 Centennial Flame Research Award will be announced at the Speaker's reception to celebrate National Access Awareness Week on Wednesday, which is tomorrow, at noon in room 216-N of the Centre Block. If any committee members can make that reception, we would certainly appreciate it.

Mr. Kilgour.

Mr. David Kilgour (Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does everyone have a copy of this?

It's a great pleasure to be back on this committee. I'm sure nobody here knows that I used to sit on this committee, for three years, and I think it was the least partisan and probably the most pleasant committee to sit on. We did some good work.

I hope everybody's had a chance to glance at this report. It deals with the House's accomplishments and the problems and policies in the area of employment policy. There are people here who will be very happy to answer questions, if anybody should have them, probably better than I can.

We deal with publications in various formats: materials, training, the awareness of MPs, their staff, and House employees, and physical improvements to the buildings within the parliamentary precinct.

The House administration, Mr. Sabourin and Ms Griffith, are continuing their efforts to render the physical environment better suited to the needs of disabled citizens and to promote a better awareness of the various obstacles disabled people are facing daily. We've come a long way, but I think we still have a long way to go to send a clear message of leadership in the field. I'm glad to see Mr. Sabourin is nodding his head. I'm sure we're all nodding our heads.

Most of us on the Hill still have to become more productive and more imaginative in finding ways to integrate disabled people into the marketplace, into our workplace. More creative thinking is needed.

I remember sitting on this committee when somebody explained to us what a TAB was. Does everybody here know what a TAB is? It's an acronym for temporarily able-bodied. They tell me that only 10% of Canadians will go through life as TABs. The other 90% of us will have some form of a disability before we shuffle off this mortal coil. So we're talking about a vast constituency.

[Translation]

As an institution representing all Canadians, we must show unfaltering leadership in the harmonious integration of the handicapped in various workplaces.

It is our duty to prove to Canadians that we have everything to gain collectively from the development of a truly favorable bias towards the handicapped, members of visible minorities and any other group which, for reasons as diverse as they are unjustified, have historically been prevented from participating fully and actively in the development of our country.

[English]

Hopefully, Canadians regard Parliament as the most democratic institution in the land, but for some among the four million disabled Canadians, Parliament is not yet fully accessible. There are continuing concerns about such issues as physical structures that limit access to some people - fewer and fewer, I believe - information sharing and alternative formats, and opportunities for participation for persons with disabilities. This means access in a more comprehensive term.

.1105

Since 1988, as I'm sure most of you know, the Speaker of the House has led a popular campaign to make Parliament barrier-free. A record achievement has been significant, particularly because of the energy, insight and commitment of officials on the Hill. I must signal all of them - three of them are here with us today. The problems that persist require our continued efforts, but also the attention of individual members of the House.

Elements of the Access Today report will build upon the good work accomplished to date, and should marshal non-partisan support from all members of the House. The elements include the 1995 Access Today report - which will be tabled tomorrow in the House, by the way - detailing the progress of the House of Commons in serving Canadians with disabilities. During the last Parliament, Speaker Fraser tabled such a report after appearing before this committee. A commitment was made to make such a report an annual event to coincide with National Access Awareness Week, which, as you know, began yesterday in Toronto with 1,000 communities across the country. It even made the national news last night.

Vigorous support for National Access Awareness Week will be shown by such things as a variety of events and demonstrations during the week, managed by Hill officials and designed to educate Canadians from all walks of life. There will be a one-day display for members of Parliament with practical advice on how to make their offices, Hill and constituency, barrier-free and accessible to all Canadians. This is being done with the enormous support, financial and otherwise, of the Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat of Human Resources Development.

There will be a Speaker's reception tomorrow for MPs, together with selected guests, to credit individuals for their voluntary contribution to the disability initiative on the Hill. You mentioned that the announcement will be made tomorrow, and the Speaker will be making an announcement, which is supposed to be a secret until tomorrow. So please come and be surprised.

In the past, as you may know, the reception was co-hosted by the chairperson of this committee and the Speaker. It was the occasion for presenting the Centennial Flame Award and certificates to participants in the Partners in Change program. I hope you'll all be there tomorrow to see the announcement made from your committee.

The development of information packages for all parliamentarians is designed to encourage support and leadership on disability questions at the constituency level. This is being done during National Access Awareness Week.

There will be an award program related to Canadians with disabilities under the auspices of the Speaker of the House of Commons. There has been some preliminary review and there will be more said about that tomorrow by the Speaker.

In closing, let me speak for three paragraphs quite plainly. There are 4.2 million Canadians who have a physical or mental disability. They include people from all walks of life; our friends and neighbours everywhere. More than half of the working-age population of disabled persons remain outside the labour force. Canada's record of achievement during the UN decade on disabled persons was acknowledged around the world. Most of the elements in the plan described the cost-effective proposals designed to profile the leadership of all parliamentarians in efforts to demonstrate that equality means accessibility for all in the affairs of Parliament and government.

I would end on a note that I hope you won't misconstrue. So often this committee is cited as being the Standing Committee on Human Rights. The last half of the title is simply ignored by the media. I hope, as a former member of the committee, that you will consider trying to give more push to the status of disabled wing of your committee.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. Forgive me, Madam, for having made most of my presentation in English.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you, David.

We'll open it up for questions. We will start with the official opposition, Madam Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I quickly perused the document. I would like to refer you to page 6 of the French document, page 5 of the English version. Could you give us the exact number of disabled persons who presented a curriculum vitae in 1994-1995?

.1110

From what I'm reading here, there are 59 curriculum vitae of self-identified disabled persons, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities, and I must say that it bothers me that all of these groups are lumped together. To be a member of a visible minority is to have a disability. To be a woman... Yes, it's true. So how many curriculum vitae of disabled persons have been presented?

Mr. Kilgour: Excellent question!

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Oh, because he has the answer.

Mr. Kilgour: You are well aware that it isn't the ministers who have the answers, but the officials.

Mr. Jacques Sabourin (Director General, Human Resources, House of Commons): Madam, this doesn't give us a breakdown of the specific number of disabled persons.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I'm sure that you will send the information to me.

Mr. Sabourin: If I'm not mistaken, for the entire group, we received CVs from 20 to 30 employees.

The number may appear small, because it is an inventory. It is readily accessible. However, it fits in with the spirit of Bill C-64. Before being able to consider that someone belongs to one of these four minority groups, the person must first self-identify his or her self. In other words, even if we have reason to believe that a person is disabled when we receive his or her curriculum vitae, we don't consider the person to be such unless he or she agrees. This is one of the reasons why the numbers are not very high, Madam.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Does Bill C-64 also apply to women? How can a woman not identify herself as such?

Mr. Sabourin: It is less difficult to recognize that one is a woman, isn't it? I will get back to you with the statistics.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

Mr. Kilgour: I would like to introduce to you Michel Pagas, who is also an expert.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Are there any questions from the government side? Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Kilgour, yesterday I had the pleasure of having a disabled person shadow me as part of the access awareness program. This man was suffering from CP. It was a good experience for me. I appreciate this report provides us with all the progress you've done to date.

At this stage I think I'm more interested in what is yet to be done. I refer specifically to committee rooms 269 and 371 in the West Block, where you have to walk up those stairs and down the other side to get to the committee room, and it certainly was a problem for this gentleman. I'm more interested in what we can do and what should be done as opposed to what we've already done. I appreciate and commend you for what you've done, but it just drove it home to me yesterday what needs to be done.

Mr. Kilgour: Is that a question or do you want to make that a statement?

Mr. Maloney: No, it's a statement and a question. Do we have an inventory of what we could also be doing?

Mr. Kilgour: Room 371 is a major problem. The stairs are awful.

There are worse, though. The fact is that so few disabled people work in the House of Commons and in the staff of the administration of the House.

Yesterday at our face-to-face briefing - and I was hoping members would get notice of that, and I guess it's my fault that they didn't all get the e-mail notice - we discovered there's nobody from the federal government on the board for the face-to-face program, and there's nobody from the House of Commons on it either yet. So we're going to try to rectify that in the year to come. I can't do much about the government but at least there should be somebody from the House of Commons on that committee.

The buddy program, which I'm sure you're aware of, has not worked as well as it should have. We had up to eleven a few years ago, and we're down to four or five. We're all going to get notices this September asking us if we would like to be the buddy for a person who would like to come and work in our office. Hopefully, all of us here would try to do that to show leadership to others.

I think you're absolutely right. A lot's been done but a lot more needs to be done.

Mr. Maloney: Does anybody want to add or subtract anything to that?

Ms Mary Anne Griffith (Deputy Clerk (Administrative Services), House of Commons): I just have a comment in relation to the buildings. We've been very conscious of the need to improve access to all the buildings. If you look at the progress that's been made over the last 10 years, it's enormous. There didn't used to be access to any of the buildings. There weren't washroom facilities. There weren't drinking fountains.

.1115

Public Works is the custodian of the buildings, so the House has been working with them in order to upgrade all the buildings to provide access.

In the move that's going to take place at the beginning of the next Parliament, where we have to vacate the West Block so that renovations can take place and the members in the West Block will be moving to the Justice Building, access is very much a priority in all of the renovations that are being done so that when members move back into the West Block it will be accessible to anyone. All the committee rooms will be accessible. We will also have upgraded the equipment in the committee rooms to provide for the hearing impaired. Every possible consideration is being given.

It's been a difficult thing to do in the past because we're dealing with heritage buildings. Changing access to marble hallways and staircases and putting in new facilities is something Public Works has moved very slowly with because they haven't wanted to disturb the heritage character of the building. So they've had to design specifically for each individual need.

But we're at the stage now where all the parliamentary buildings are accessible and there are handicapped washrooms in every parliamentary building. So we've come a long way, but you're absolutely right; we have a long way to go. That's something the staff is particularly conscious of in the renovations that are going to be taking place in the next ten years, in both the Centre Block and the West Block. I can assure you that ten years from now the progress we've made in the last ten years will be doubled or tripled.

Mr. Maloney: I have a comment on my observations in going around with this gentleman yesterday. Even getting into the green buses, which we take for granted, this man had difficulty because of the length of the step. There's a little thing like a step the driver could have that he could quickly put out if necessary.

Another time I met with Sheila Copps on an issue and I introduced this gentleman. Her mother is actively involved with disabilities in the city of Hamilton and she indicated they have an initiative now where they are replacing sidewalks in Hamilton. There is a stamp they put down with a Braille imprint so that people coming along with a white cane can detect how close they are to the curb. That's something unique that I'd never heard of and perhaps it might be considered on the Hill as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Mr. Maloney, is that the end of your questioning?

Mr. Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry; I just fell asleep.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): I thought you'd dozed off for a second.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral, do you have any other questions?

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: No, thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Are there any other questions from the government side? I would like to pose a couple of questions, if nobody minds.

First of all, I was glad to see that you're going to table this report in the House tomorrow, Mr. Kilgour. I just wondered what thoughts were given on what mechanism is in place on how you're going to publicize what's going on on the Hill. Have you thought about that?

Mr. Kilgour: It's a constant problem and we don't do it well enough. But compared to last year, and frankly very largely thanks to Skip Brooks from the disabled secretariat, who has given us resources, money, and lots of things we probably wouldn't have otherwise had to do this.... There is even talk about getting some of the consumer groups to make comments on how we've done. If you'd like Mr. Brooks to come and speak on that, I'm sure he'd be glad to.

We're hoping to have a report afterwards and to look at all the things we did wrong this year, like the foul-up on getting it on the e-mail face-to-face yesterday.

We've had good cooperation from the consumer groups, too - I'd say very good cooperation - but there are so many of those groups. I know we haven't done well enough, but I think we've done a lot better this year than we did last year, thanks to the efforts of people. Some of them are sitting at the back of the room and some of them are sitting here.

We hope we've sent kits to every member's office. I hope you have one, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Yes, I do.

Mr. Kilgour: There's some camera-ready stuff I hope you'll consider using. I hope you'll use the gentleman you were with yesterday in your householder or something.

.1120

I'm sure there isn't one of us who doesn't have many thousands of disabled constituents. I've found that when you put something in your householder, not in a patronizing way but showing somebody being fully integrated into society, they really appreciate it.

It also came out yesterday that disabled employees are often the best employees because they work harder than others and try harder. Very often I think people who have worked with them have found them to be the best employees there are because of their determination to succeed, which is very often greater than in people who don't have disabilities.

I don't know whether you'll have a chance to go down and look at the American Disability Action. This committee did that a few years ago. We discovered that one of the reasons they brought this bill into the U.S. Congress was because they recognize - and I wish we had the same problem - they're going to have a labour shortage in the U.S. and there are something like 9 million disabled Americans who could be brought into the workforce.

I hope before long we'll have the same problem in Canada, where we're going to badly need this enormous reservoir of people with talent, energy and so on, and an enormous will to work. As I'm sure you know, bringing people into the workforce is the most useful thing we can do for the disabled community, as I understand it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Who's going to monitor these initiatives everybody is proposing? Do you have somebody?

Mr. Kilgour: That's a tough question. I expect it's one of the questions I've been asked that I can't answer. Does anyone here have an answer to that?

Ms Griffith: On behalf of the House, we have an annual review of our accomplishments for the year. That's part of putting together the report. It goes to the Board of Internal Economy. So once a year our progress is reviewed, not only in relation to disabled employees, but in relation to employment equity as a whole. We do an annual report to the board, where it's discussed, and it questions us on progress made in these areas. So there is an annual accountability exercise.

It's reflected as well in senior management at the House because managers are encouraged, on a regular basis by the human resources people, to look at disabled candidates for employment. One of the ways we do this is through our evaluation exercises of our senior staff each year. If I'm looking at how all the directors general did, for example, one of the factors I take into consideration is their staffing.

It has been a disadvantage to us obviously in the last couple of years when there have been massive staffing freezes and we, like all government areas, have been in a downsizing operation. But when we do go outside to recruit employees, we make a concerted effort to make sure we are reaching out to those organizations that can give us lists of names of people who would be interested in employment with the House and are from disadvantaged groups. Managers are evaluated on how well they do in reaching out to these groups. It's something we make a positive effort to do.

I would like to recount a little story that I think goes a long way toward enhancing the visibility aspect, which I think is what we have to do more than anything else. I was at a large dinner a few weeks ago with a number of people from the Canadian Bankers Association and large insurance industries. People asked where I worked and I said the House of Commons. A comment was made to me by the chief executive officer of a very large, major Canadian corporation that he was really impressed with the efforts the House was making in relation to disabled and disadvantaged Canadians.

He had appeared before a parliamentary committee a few days before and had seen a blind interpreter come into the committee room, take his position and do his job during the meeting. He said, ``I was thinking, when I saw that gentleman come in, how far we have to go in the banking industry to encourage disabled Canadians to participate fully. If the House of Commons can do it I don't understand why we can't.'' It was just a visible symbol that made all the difference to him.

I think one of the reasons the managers in the House are so conscious of making an effort is because we are so visible. I think members are equally visible in their offices and particularly in their constituencies. I think it's really important to make that effort to have disabled Canadians participate as equal partners with the rest of Canadians. Mr. Kilgour has made the point that making it visible and making it a positive sign is probably the most important thing we can do.

.1125

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): I have a couple more questions, but I would also entertain a question from Madam Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral: This will be a comment rather than a question, to follow-up on what you said, Mary Anne.

In my riding--and this probably relates to my background--it was obvious that I needed an office at the first level of access. I'm located in a small shopping center, so to facilitate the parting situation, I forced the landlord to build wheelchair ramps, and also to install wider doors and build wheelchair-accessible washrooms.

It would be interesting to find out how many offices across Canada provide that kind of access. I didn't even think twice about it. It was clear in my mind, but not everyone is as fully aware of the issues.

Mr. Sabourin: We're aware of that, Madam. In the booklets we prepare after each election, we suggest that MPs really think about the facitlities in which they plan to locate their offices and provide the kinds of access aids you've just described.

Mr. Kilgour: Do you think it would be a good idea to table an annual public report about this in the House of Commons itself? As Members of Parliament, how do you feel about that?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): I think it would be a great idea. It would certainly help publicize what everybody is trying to do, and I would like to see it done every year.

Mr. Maloney: I would concur with your position on that. This is the House of Commons, with the Hill staff and facilities, but we have many other departments in government throughout the country. Are there any requirements on them to have similar reports or should there be, with a view to embarrassing them, if nothing else, into improving their facilities?

Mr. Kilgour: We all work for the House, so I'm sure we'd all agree with you, but would you like to call Mr. Brooks from the secretariat for us?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Mr. Brooks, do you have any comments?

Mr. Skip Brooks (Senior Policy Adviser, Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation.

I would like to remind you of something, because I've been involved with this committee since its inception in 1979. It started as a special committee looking at ways of celebrating the International Year of Disabled Persons scheduled for 1981. I'll just mention again that the committee has a tremendous history of leadership, and that leadership wasn't always by embarrassing departments and ministers, of course. It was one of the tactics, but there were many other collaborative ones.

I'd like to go on the record right now as reinforcing what my colleagues have said from the Hill. So much has happened that a lot of times MPs and the public don't even appreciate the other kinds of conditions and concerns you also had to deal with, such as the heritage buildings. But nonetheless, a lot of bureaucrats, with all the economic and fiscal constraints on them, have provided some really exemplary leadership. If we have failed anywhere, it's in keeping this issue in the public eye and a matter of public record.

This committee's role in the past has been to keep the issue percolating on the table. I think they found over the course of time that the antagonistic confrontational approach wasn't the best way of doing things. Most of the ministers and the members of the House were very sensitive and very well-intentioned. We had to find a way of mixing what consumers understood and needed with the intent of the parliamentarians and the bureaucrats to provide the best kind of service.

.1130

Now, to answer your question....

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Now that you're on the record.

Mr. Brooks: There are a number of pieces of legislation that call for a response by government departments and they do that. But I think you know as well as I, it's not that difficult to disguise your record too. What this committee had been doing in the past was looking at some of the reports that came from various departments to see how much disguising was really going on.

Their questions were the kind of questions you asked this morning - practical things. Where are these being repeated? Is your example of accessibility an exception or is it the practice, not a rule? Does it come from an understanding of need and your ability to respond?

Again, with the Hill, it's ironic that the officials of the Hill are here today talking about what they've been doing as opposed to my own minister or maybe even the Prime Minister. The point is that people keep doing the job. It isn't a big, sexy issue. It doesn't catch the media's attention very easily.

In fact - I have to say this - in Toronto yesterday they had, for the first time in Ontario, the national kick-off for National Access Awareness Week and they had a terrible time right across the street from the CBC to get anyone to come over and cover that activity. Children, seniors, and all kinds of people were at it. I said, ``Look, what you've really got to do is get a Henry Enns or somebody like that and have him go up and do a bungee-jump in his wheelchair off the CN Tower and maybe somebody will pay attention''.

The real challenge is to keep it in the public eye and make people realize that the job isn't done yet and that there is a good track record and it can be built upon. Departments do have to respond and they do.

I think the committee also has to be diligent in ensuring that all of the departments keep working in collaboration and that the good work of one doesn't undo the good work of another, which means they really do have to conspire, work with the community, the private sector, and the public interest groups, and really make equality have meaning rather than just a lot of rhetoric. Now I'm making a speech. I didn't intend to. I didn't intend to speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): That's hard to believe, Mr. Brooks.

I have a couple more questions, if the committee doesn't mind. I noticed you used a voluntary self-identification questionnaire to identify persons with disabilities employed by the House of Commons, but that the low response rate made the data unreliable. I'm just wondering, what will be the new communications strategy to improve the response rate, and do you ever really anticipate a truly accurate sample?

Mr. Sabourin: I don't know about the ultimate target of a perfect sample. However, I think we do recognize that in the two previous surveys we did where the response was rather low, with about 357 in the last one out of 1,700 employees at the time, one of the errors we made was sending it out a little bit too cold.

I think we should have had a good positive build-up to it, a little bit in the same sense that Skip is saying for the overall picture, and really make people aware. As a matter of fact, we've had feedback where, when we spoke to people and they saw that it was not a threatening kind of questionnaire in any kind of way, they sort of said ``Well, had I known...''. I think we simply put it down on their tables and asked them to please fill it out, without any kind of preparation, and without a chance to get back to us for questions or that kind of thing.

Although we offered it in a passive way, I think if we are to get into another exercise, which we're mulling over now, those are the efforts we want to make. We want to make a concerted effort to make people aware of what it is we're asking and why, and that we believe it's a win-win situation if people do fill it out as completely as possible.

Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, there was a time historically when to be identified and labelled as somebody with a disability was very pejorative. It was threatening, and it wasn't very long ago that people thought like that. There have been only two national censuses in Canada dealing with disability, and the numbers increased dramatically from one census to the next. I think the only reason is that public attitudes changed over the course of those four or five years. The numbers of people didn't change, but those who would self-identify did.

People with disabilities also resent the idea of somebody else determining for them whether or not they're disabled, particularly in the public service. Nobody wants their manager saying ``you must be disabled'' because, again, that carries that pejorative identity rather than one that says ``I'm as equal and productive as you are''.

.1135

So it's hard to get away from. But one thing that can happen over the course of time is an improved public attitude and everyone feeling a lot more comfortable about contributing to making changes in the workplace and helping everyone to be productive.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): I have one more question.

While I realize that the efforts and successes achieved by the House of Commons are clearly worthwhile, I'm concerned with the cost of some of these initiatives. Accessibility is an important goal. We have to ensure that we're getting our money's worth.

For example, I think we are providing House material in alternate formats for persons with disabilities, at what I imagine is probably a fair amount of expense. I wonder if anybody at the table has any information showing that these materials are really being utilized. Are they being utilized?

Mr. Kilgour: I think, Mr. Chairman, we discovered in Washington that the average amount an employer spent to facilitate the premises for disabled employees was something like $57. I assume it must be comparable in Canada. I haven't seen the figures, but perhaps somebody here knows the figures.

As to whether the material is being used, I guess someone else will have to grapple with that one. I don't know the answer.

Mr. Sabourin: I can't answer in terms of specific statistics, but in some cases it is not being used as much as it could. But it's also part of the environment in terms of staff, where we're not increasing staff.

For example, we have a special budget whereby if a manager wants to take on a disabled person but there's an expense to have a special computer or a large screen and those kinds of things, we will help that individual along, if you will, from a central budget.

In the last few years, that budget has not been used in totality. As a matter of fact, last year there were no requests. But that, of course, is tied to the fact that if there were any new handicapped persons brought in, they obviously did not require any technical aids.

That's one we can put our finger on. In terms of how many people use copies of Braille documents or large print documents, I would have to go back and get some specifics, although in some of those areas the costs are likely to come down.

If, for example, parliamentary publications are available on PubNet or on a screen, you probably will not have to produce paper or large print documents. The disabled person who wants it will be able to drive the size of the print they want from their own station. So in terms of costs, except maybe for infrastructure things like physical obstacles, those are not necessarily likely to increase.

Your question is pertinent. I don't have specific answers, but I don't think those costs will be incremental to the progress we will be making.

Ms Griffith: I'd like to comment briefly. Most of the requests we get are fairly minimal. Someone wants an audio tape of proceedings, for example, and because we broadcast and because we have electronic facilities, the cost of providing it is very minimal.

One of the areas we've been slow in expanding because of the cost has been closed captioning for television. We do it for Question Period, but we don't do it for the entire proceedings in both languages because of the cost. We've been watching the technology and hoping the costs would come down sufficiently so that it would be economically viable.

That's a perfect example of where the cost would be prohibitive in view of the number of people who are requesting it, although it's something that's being watched and being monitored. We're still looking for a way to provide that to Canadians as a whole. Our problem, of course, is we need closed captioning in both official languages, and we need to be able to do it on a continuous basis for the entire proceedings. To be able to do it for that amount of time in both languages is quite costly. That's one example of where we haven't been able to move as quickly as we would like because of cost.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Are there any other questions from committee members?

.1140

Mr. Maloney: Reference was made to various government departments having reports on their achievements with respect to accessibility. I'd be interested in examining this - and this has been done previously - to see what the progress has been and what perhaps could be suggested to do a little more.

Would the clerk be able to put his hands on such reports?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): We should be able to do that.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, this is an addendum to that observation. There was put in place five years ago a national strategy that had a bundle of new money, a number of priorities and objectives set out, and it was distributed in terms of responsibility amongst ten federal departments. With reorganization, that may be down to seven or eight.

Each of these departments dealt with the national strategy in different ways. Industry dealt with the private sector closely, and the old Secretary of State, which is now Human Resources Development, dealt closely with the development of a consumer movement. I would remind you that this movement is very mature and very well informed on what happens in this country, what the priorities are, and where things should be going, particularly in terms of economic analysis.

All those departments come under this auspices or umbrella of the national strategy. I think it has one year left, at the end of which it has a sunset clause. It might be something you could look at if you really want to do some investigation, because there are some clear, set goals and there have been some objective assessments of its progress.

Mr. Maloney: Those are things we could look at as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Wood): Sure, we'll get that.

That being the case, I just want to personally thank Mr. Brooks for joining us at the table. I know you didn't come prepared to do this, but I certainly appreciate you being here, and always have when you appear before us. Your candidness on this matter is always appreciated by the committee. Thank you for taking the time to come before us on a moment's notice.

I also want to thank the Deputy Speaker and the staff of the House of Commons for joining us today and for bringing us up to date on the House initiatives on disabilities. We look forward, of course, to seeing everybody tomorrow at the Speaker's reception at noon in Room 216-N of the Centre Block.

I adjourn the committee to the call of the chair.