House of Commons Hansard #236 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-64.

Topics

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17.

We are now going to Group No. 2, without Motion No. 3. Miss Grey, seconded by Mr. White moves that Bill C-64, in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 10, on page 4, with the following: "(3) Members of".

In view of the fact that the member whose motion this was to have been is not present in the House for whatever reason, we will now proceed to group three.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-64, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 6, with the following: b ) to hire or promote any but the best qualified persons;''.

Mr. Speaker, this section of Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act, otherwise known as affirmative action, goes right back to the start and I would merely add to earlier comments I made. I should put this in some context for members in the House who, unfortunately, were not here earlier today to hear my initial comments on the bill and for those many thousands of Canadians watching on television.

Bill C-64 is the Employment Equity Act brought forward by the Liberal government. Employment equity is a phrase coined by Judge Abella about 12 or 13 years ago, in the full understanding that affirmative action would never sell in Canada. To make it politically correct it was given a new name and it became employment equity rather than affirmative action.

Here we are with affirmative action in the guise of employment equity.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Wrong, absolutely wrong.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

I hear wails of outrage from members opposite. I can understand that. However the foundation on which this bill rests is faulty. It is false. The foundation is that somehow or other Canadians are a mean, regressive, racist, discriminating people. Canadians are nothing of the sort. We are not that. We do not need the federal government creating more paperwork, more book work, in order to do what it feels, I am sure, is the right thing, to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

When debate on third reading unfolds we will make it abundantly clear that no such discrimination exists in the workplace. The workplace, particularly outside the federal government, is progressive. Industry leads. It is a totally unnecessary law.

I know we are all going to have an opportunity to say what we wish to say about Bill C-64 when it comes to third reading and I will leave my introductory comments at that.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore Ontario

Liberal

Jean Augustine LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the fears and misconceptions which the Reform Party member is taking advantage of in this motion on best qualified.

These are anxious times for many Canadians. The economy, while improving, is no longer as assured as it once was. Jobs are not as permanent as once expected. Canada's labour force has experienced swings as traditional industries shed workers, while new ones arise with different skill needs. There is a sense that the economic pie is not growing as much as we would like it to.

The government understands that families face social pressures that were largely absent a generation ago. Young people grow up surrounded by issues from which they cannot be sheltered. There is a sense that our society is more troubled than it once was.

The federal government is pursuing an agenda that is addressing those issues. However, we recognize that there are a lot of ways that people respond to those different kinds of uncertainty. One is backlash against people who are perceived as part of the problem. Any groups that are seen to be by some as pushing for too much or getting an undeserved share of too limited resources face an angry response.

I think this is the real motivation behind the Reform Party's introduction of this motion on best qualified.

However, the truth is often far different than those stories would indicate. Unfortunately, lots of people are having trouble finding good work. In fact, people from the designated groups under employment equity are more likely to experience those problems that other persons.

Employment equity is not about preferential treatment. The simple fact is that Bill C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an unqualified person. It is quite explicit on that point.

Let me quote Mona Katawne of Manitoba Telephone System who testified before the standing committee. She said:

There is no evidence that hiring from among the designated group members is a lowering of qualifications; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. There are people from the designated groups who are both available to work and qualified to work.

The fact is that our economy has surpluses of highly qualified people from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out there.

However, this myth of preferential treatment persists because of misinformation. A perfect example is the Gallup poll that appeared in the December 23, 1993 Toronto Star . The headlines blared that 74 per cent oppose job equity programs. Let us take a look at the actual question. What was the question? It was:

Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more women and minority group members for management positions, or should government take no action whatsoever and hire new employees based solely on their qualifications?

With such a question the response was what the headlines blared. The question unfairly forced people to choose between actively attempting to hire more women and minority group members and hiring based on qualifications. I am not surprised that 74 per cent, when asked such a question, chose qualifications.

Employment equity means broadening access to all qualified people. It means giving people the chance to become better qualified.

On virtually any scale, people in the designated groups fare poorly in today's labour market. I want to underscore that point. There are still barriers to full participation by members of the designated groups. The goal of this legislation is to end those barriers, not to create a new discrimination against someone else. It is to end those barriers.

Let us look at one specific group that fares especially poorly in our labour market and that is people with disabilities. Only about 60 per cent of adults with disabilities are in the labour market at all. They have unemployment rates that are almost double the national average and that costs us all as Canadians.

The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study that looked at people with mental disabilities. They calculated the loss to our economy of large scale segregation of these people from our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to unemployment, social assistance costs and lost consumption. They found that the cost to Canada's economy of keeping these people out of society in many ways is about $4.6 billion a year.

We must reject those attacks on employment equity and defeat the motion. It is important that those of us who come here responsibly realize and recognize the demands of society, the demands that are before us, and do what Canadians expect of all of us in the House. They expect us to be caring, compassionate, responsible individuals ready to meet the needs of society, ready to ensure that equity and equality exist in society.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the motion put forward by the hon. member to amend clause 6.

Let me say at the outset that clause 6 was included in the bill to dispel certain myths about employment equity. One such myth is that employment equity means hiring unqualified people. According to this myth employment equity requires employers to lower their standards and change their job requirements to accommodate inferior candidates.

This notion is absolutely false. It is pure nonsense. It is the complete misunderstanding of what employment equity is about and it is extremely degrading to members of designated groups.

We have included clause 6 in the bill to make it perfectly clear to everyone, so there can be no mistake. However the change proposed by the hon. member is unacceptable. Although it adds nothing of substance to the bill, it creates a host of additional problems by including the new notion of best qualified.

The first problem is obvious. What does best qualified mean? How do we determine best? Best according to whose definition? I do not deny that sometimes it may be possible to establish a very sophisticated, completely objective method to determine a best candidate, but too often best simply ends up meaning someone just like me. In these situations best becomes another excuse to create barriers. We do not need more barriers.

Who was best? Is the candidate with the most university degrees always the best? Let us say we are talking about hiring a cook or a manual labourer. Book learning is not the main qualification for the job. Obviously skill is. Is the candidate with a master's degree in law better qualified than the high school graduate, even though the degree has nothing to do with the job at all? Or, have we created just another barrier? I repeat that we do not need more barriers.

The government stands firm about employment equity. It does not require any employer to hire unqualified individuals. However it asks employers to look actively for qualified applicants in places they might not have previously looked. It asks them to find qualified workers in designated groups that have been overlooked and consider them along with other qualified candidates. It asks them to eliminate barriers in these processes, but it does not dictate the outcome of the hiring and the promotion decision. It certainly never asks them to hire someone who is not qualified.

Sometimes certain employers go further. Sometimes a big hearted employer will find and train people who have not had a chance. They will see to it that these people become qualified. Let us make no mistake. These employers do not have to do it. The law does not require it. However they find it brings their companies unexpected benefits.

I will tell a story about one such employer. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a crown corporation, recently instituted a special pilot program for four young people with intellectual disabilities. Three of the four have Down's syndrome. These four individuals were carefully trained for the company for temporary photocopying, filing and messenger jobs. They were always willing and co-operative. They were extremely proud of their new found independence and their success in this work. Their families were grateful that the responsibility for their children was being shared.

It is most interesting that although the four people required extra supervision they unexpectedly brought much happiness and compassion into the workplace. Though their lot in life was different they never complained. Their happiness and gratitude were contagious. They caused very beautiful qualities to blossom in their fellow workers who were touched and inspired by their innocence, simplicity and gratitude.

These four individuals brought a great deal of joy to the workplace. The project's participants, supervisors and workers received one of CMHC president's excellence awards in 1994. Though they may not have been the best qualified for the job according to traditional standards, they performed their job with enthusiasm and in doing it brought something special to the workplace. They made it a better workplace for everyone.

Sometimes the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. In looking for excellence we sometimes find it in the most unexpected places. We sometimes achieve it in the most unexpected ways. This is one lesson of employment equity. I would not want to tie in any way the hands of an employer who wants to undertake an innovative program such as the one at CMHC.

I frankly do not know what the full impact of including best qualified in this section might be. I fear, however, that it would ultimately constrain the efforts of employers who will look for best in new areas and for best in the sum total of the parts. For these reasons I cannot support the motion.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow on the hon. member's comments with respect to the word best and the concept of best qualified which Reform is seeking to introduce into the legislation. It strikes me that it could have a twist, an irony of resulting in imposing on the private sector a ridiculous standard. The word best is very hard to define. The prior speaker indicated that he thought the language itself was problematic.

If we use the term best qualified then we would have to look somewhere for a definition of it. I briefly looked in the Oxford dictionary and it states that the word best can be an adjective, a noun or an adverb. It is defined as follows: "excelling all others, inherent or relative to some standard, the most appropriate, advantageous, desirable, or in a person, the kindest, the greatest in size or quantity", and so on.

I wonder how the Reform Party will explain that kind of an imposition of regulation on the private sector. Which of those definitions should we choose? Are we asking employers to hire the biggest person, the kindest person, the most appropriate person? If the job involves answering the telephone, do we need a Ph.D. in communications, or would a graduate certificate from a business college suffice? Could we use someone who has a physical disability to answer the telephone?

My view and the view of many people on this side of the House is that the imposition of the term best qualified is ridiculous in this context. How can we legislate a definition of best, a word that could have different grammatical forms?

All this goes back to the fundamental Reform position which is absurd in my view. Government is not here to create barriers. Government sometimes has to act to take away the barriers, to intervene on behalf of our citizens to remove barriers in different situations: barriers in the legal system and barriers in employment.

Reform has stated today: "The only criteria on which people should be hired or promoted is merit. Anything else is discrimination".

Testosterone levels are a little high on the Reform benches today. The concept of discrimination is dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act. If Reformers would bother to read that act, they would see that their definition of discrimination does not hold water.

The Canadian Human Rights Act specifically allows special programs designed to reduce the disadvantage suffered by groups or individuals when those disadvantages are based on race, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability and other characteristics such as accidents of one's birth or accidents of one's life. These programs are allowed under that statute and under the Constitution of Canada.

I know it upsets them to mention the charter of rights and freedoms because they do not like it. However I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the law of the land, section 15(2) of the charter which deals with the right to equality before and under the law and to equal protection and benefit for all individuals.

Subsection 15(2) of the charter states:

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

That is part of the country's Constitution. It means that equality means more than just treating everyone identically. It means that equality also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences. That is what employment equity seeks to do, to achieve equality in the workplace through the accommodation of differences, through the elimination of barriers, through outreach recruiting programs, but not through hiring the unqualified. This is not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.

We fully support hiring on the basis of merit. Nobody is disputing that point. However Reformers have created a strawman. They call it discrimination. They set it up and then they knock it down.

That is why section 6 is included in the act. Section 6 is there because employment equity does not require any employer to hire someone who is unqualified. That is what section 6 does.

How much clearer can we be? Reform repeatedly insists on raising this spectre. I want to be perfectly clear that employment equity is by no stretch of the imagination discrimination. It is perfectly compatible with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Reform members

object then we should let their objection be against the foundations of the country and not against the employment equity act.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have heard Reform members say that we should be hiring on the basis of merit. That is what the legislation is all about. It is what it has been all about for over eight years now.

It is about getting rid of barriers in the system that have prevented people from being hired, from being promoted, from being given job opportunity regardless of merit. Colour of their skin, aboriginal origin, disability and gender have all acted against people of merit and kept them from getting jobs. That is exactly what the legislation is about.

We disagree that the Reform Party does not want to accept the reality of life for over 60 per cent of Canadians who have not been given opportunity, despite their merit, despite their ability, despite the contribution they have to make. The legislation and the pre-existing employment equity act are all about making merit and only merit the criteria on which hiring takes place.

I welcome the motion. It gives me an opportunity to clarify what the bill tries to do. It is an employment equity act. It is not an employment preference act. It is about creating equality in the workplace. It is about fairness. It is about removing employment barriers which blind us to the merit of individuals to provide all with the opportunity to compete fairly for jobs. It is about hiring qualified people to do the job, not only those who fit an image that for a long time we as a society and managers in our society have seen as the kind of person most likely to succeed.

Let me read what Bill C-64 says in this regard. The bill states that the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons. That is very clear, notwithstanding the comments that have been made about employment equity requiring somebody to hire somebody just because they are female or are black or Oriental or aboriginal or just because they use a wheelchair.

Members can refer to the existing paragraph 6(b) for confirmation. We want to create a level playing field for all workers. That is why we insist on the equal consideration of all qualified applicants. We believe that every individual, regardless of race, gender, or disability, must have a fair opportunity to prove his or her abilities and be given a fair chance to contribute to the Canadian workplace.

For far too long a large segment of our society has not been allowed to contribute to the Canadian economy the abilities they have. As we face an increasingly competitive global marketplace, we cannot afford not to use the full talents of all our people.

Bill C-64 is not about dictating to employers the result of an individual recruitment decision. It is about encouraging employers to assess their entire approach to employment, to make sure they do not either consciously or inadvertently create barriers to capable job candidates. Let me repeat that: capable job candidates.

There is no doubt that those barriers do exist. I believe my hon. colleague underestimates the prevalence of systemic although unconscious discrimination in the workplace. It is as insidious as it is invisible. Countless well qualified men and women members of the designated groups have not obtained positions or promotions because of their race, their physical attributes, or their gender. To dispute this is to deny mountains of reports that consistently paint a picture of workplace injustice. To deny this is to deny the real daily and painful experience and frustration of millions of Canadians who are not allowed to contribute up to their ability.

Systemic discrimination is no longer acceptable. With this legislation we are encouraging employers to create the conditions in which no segment of the population will be discriminated against or excluded in job competitions. Only in this way can we be assured that those selected will be the most capable of doing the task.

I hope my hon. colleague understands that this bill establishes a floor, a foundation from which employers can build a more equitable and representative workforce. They can only do that by getting rid of barriers that have kept women, people of colour, aboriginal people, and people with disabilities largely in the lowest paying jobs.

The point of the act is not to tell employers how to go about the details of their business. This House is not interested in the micro-management of the affairs of business. Employers have made it clear that they do not need nor want the hand of government in their internal operations. That is why this amendment is so out of place. The impact of the Reform Party's amendment would be to get into the business of telling companies how to run their businesses.

Best by whose definition? Best by the definition that has taken the category of clerks in the public service, the lowest paid and probably the least qualified in many cases. Eighty-five per cent of them are women. But in the top ranks of that lowest category, guess who rises? It is not the women, who are 84 per cent of the employees, but the men.

We have had employment equity not by legislation but by policy in the federal government for over a decade. Still barely 18 per cent of our management category are women.

Maybe Reform Party members would like to make the argument that women are inherently less qualified and that is why they have not risen to the top. Well, I would love to see them try to justify that argument.

Maybe they have not read the reports that say that equally or better qualified black males in the country earn up to 20 per cent less than white males. Maybe they have not seen the reports that document how the disabled are kept out of employment and if they do get employment it is often temporary, short term, and low paid.

Maybe Reform members want preferential treatment for less than half of our population to continue. Maybe they do not want everybody to have an equal opportunity. Well, this government does. We believe that we have an extremely talented population and it is going to be essential to our competitiveness that we use every bit of talent this country possesses. We have to get rid of the blinkers and blinders that have kept both government and the private sector from giving opportunities to people based solely on their merit. We have to get rid of the perception of gender that says women cannot do certain kinds of jobs, or certainly cannot do them as well as men.

I do not know a man who is competent or capable who is not prepared to compete on an equal playing field with any woman in Canadian society. Those who want to continue preferential treatment must have something to fear, and they all seem to be concentrated in the Reform Party.

This country has prided itself on equality of opportunity. This is another step forward in equality of opportunity. The Reform Party keeps referring to social engineering. Well, it is social engineering when 90 per cent of those who rise to the top represent less than half of the population. That is social engineering. It is unconscionable. It is a waste of the talents and energy of the majority of the Canadian population.

No, I do not have all the answers. But I do know that I do not want to walk into the banks of this country and tell them very precisely that they must hire only the best qualified, which then government would be constrained to define in the legislation so they could apply my definition to every single hiring process, which happens by the hundreds of thousands in the banks of this country every year. No, I do not want to operate that way. Yet that is the way the amendment from the Reform Party would have us operate.

I urge the House to reject the amendment and I urge us to get on with the business of hiring people in the country based on merit and not on their gender, race, disability, or aboriginal origin.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the bill and maybe share with my colleagues some of my own experiences in this area.

I can tell the House that Bill C-64 is very progressive because it is the way corporations and large businesses are going. As a member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, we adopted a theme and a vision for the corporation that the workforce of the corporation should reflect the community it serves.

The bankers have said it is the right way to go. Let me read to the House what the Canadian bankers have stated on employment equity: "It has stimulated fundamental reviews and enhancement in the bank's human resource policies and practices, which have benefited everyone. It has helped us lay the foundation for managing an increasingly diverse workforce, something every employer of choice in the 1990s wants to do well."

Whether it is West Coast Energy, the banks, or any other corporation, they have recognized that the future workforce is going to be diverse. They have to plan for that diverse workforce. They have to ensure that the future workforce has the skills. Employment equity takes the barriers down. It takes away those barriers that do exist. And they do exist.

I remember when I was about 18 years old I used to work in a sawmill at Crown Zellerbach. I noticed that out of a very large workforce of 2,000 to 2,500 it did not reflect what every other sawmill reflected. It came to my attention that the personnel manager at that time was discriminating. He was discriminating against hiring visible minorities.

I had a job there. I got a job and I could have said I have my job, I do not have to worry about this. But it did not reflect the community. People who would apply there from visible minority groups and who had the qualifications would not get hired.

I remember I was 18 years old and I made an appointment with the vice-president of the corporation. I went there and said he had a personnel manager who discriminates against certain groups and is not hiring them. Of course they were very defensive and said that it was not true, but in fact it was true. It was true.

Even though the vice-president of the corporation at that time did not admit that, the personnel manager was let go. Lo and behold, over the next two or three years we saw quite a different hiring procedure, quite a different way in which people were hired.

There are barriers all the time. There are barriers against the disabled. I know that. My own father unfortunately lost his vision around 22 or 23 years ago, when he was a young man of 40. When that happens to someone who is close to you, you realize the barriers that exist to them, the barriers of their daily life, never

mind the barriers of trying to get employment, trying to make sure that you are fulfilling your daily life, the things we take for granted.

This employment equity bill recognizes that barriers exist against certain groups. We want to have a plan to reduce those barriers, just as we do in this House. We want to ensure for example that more women are represented in the House. Is it wrong to plan to do things in a better way to improve their representation in the House? Is that wrong? That is right.

There are ways we can do things to take away those barriers, to reduce those barriers. That is what the employment equity bill is all about. It recognizes that barriers exist and that we want both in the public sector and in the private sector to lay out a plan. Maybe it is their hiring procedure. They have to look at how they hire.

For example, the aboriginal community has been left out, and we have to work hard to include them. Look at the social problems in the aboriginal community. I have gone through the streets of Vancouver with a policeman and walked through some of the most difficult areas there. We know that we have neglected our job, that we have not done it, because we see so many of them with drug and alcohol problems, with tremendous social problems. They have been left out. They have not been able to participate in the benefits and in the economy.

First we must recognize that those barriers exist. All of this is a plan to see how we can tear down those barriers, reduce those barriers by saying we are not doing things the right way. Maybe we are not hiring in the right way. Maybe we are not planning, maybe we are not training. All of these things are very important.

It is also beneficial and profitable for the corporation. As someone who was an employer, I know how important it is to make sure you have a diverse workforce, because in the global economy that diverse workforce will be a great advantage to you. It will provide new sources of energy, different ways of looking at things, and it will open doors when we trade in the international community and in the global economy. We have to recognize that as an asset. We have to recognize that our diverse population is a tremendous asset. We have to recognize that in all our corporations and companies the diverse population should be reflected in those institutions and in our private sector corporations.

This is an excellent bill. When the members of the Reform really have a good look at this bill they will support it. It will make sure we do things better, that we include people, that we make sure we have a good reflection of what this country is all about in all our institutions, in our private corporations as well as our public corporations.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Employment Equity ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.