Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion adopted.

Petitions

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, this petition was signed by 300 Canadian citizens.

The undersigned residents of the province of Saskatchewan draw the attention of the House to section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada wherein convicted murders sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for a review after 15 years.

Whereas the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most reprehensible crime, the petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in the House to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents from the riding of Red Deer.

The citizens request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people. I concur with the petitioners' request.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present.

The petitioners want Parliament to ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide are enforced vigorously and to make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians have signed petitions requesting parliamentarians to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Section 745 allows those convicted of first or second degree murder to have their parole ineligibility reduced to 15 years. There will be a vote later this day at 5.30 p.m. on a private member's bill which would do just that, that is repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I have the privilege to present to Parliament some of those petitions today containing the names of several hundred petitioners requesting that Parliament repeal section 745. I urge members to be out this afternoon to vote in favour of the private member's bill.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House from Canadians objecting to absolute discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians who are an everyday reality in all regions of Canada. They say that is unacceptable for a country known for its commitment to human rights equality and dignity for all citizens.

It calls upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House under Standing Order 36 on behalf of the hon. member for York South-Weston and his constituents.

The undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the fact that individuals convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Those convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more.

Section 745 of the Canadian Criminal Code allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law. Individuals convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison can become eligible for parole after serving 15 years by virtue of section 745 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation to remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal Code. I agree with the petitioners.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have petitions signed by 800 people from across the country.

These people believe that grandparents, as a consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children, are often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians. Several provincial jurisdictions including the Quebec civil code contain a provision to ensure the right of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to state that in no case may a father or mother, without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and the grandparents and failing agreement between the parties the modalities of the relations are settled by the court.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a second petition with 45 signatures.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present under Standing Order 36 that deal with section 745 of the Criminal Code. One is from members of the RCMP and many police officers in Saskatchewan and asks that section 745 be repealed.

I have another petition from numerous individuals in Alberta asking that section 745 be repealed. I am privileged to support these petitions.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall the questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since March 8, 1994 or 280 days. It is a straightforward question.

I wonder if I could get an indication of when I might expect a reply.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that it will be soon. I would hope we might have an answer before the adjournment of the House this week but I do not know.

I must say it is one question I have inquired about on numerous occasions. I understand there has been some difficulty with the answer. As soon as it can be provided I will be glad to table it in the House for the hon. member.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My Question No. 40 has been on the Order Paper since April 22, 1994 or 231 days. I am also wondering when I can expect an answer. It seems to be taking a terribly long time.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the situation the hon. member has described. I too am disappointed at the delay in getting some of the responses. In the last few days I have been pressing to get answers to these questions so they could be tabled in the House this week.

I assure the hon. member that his questions have been the subject of intense questioning by me as to when we might get answers in the House. I will continue to press for a quick reply.

I appreciate the member is representing many Canadians who are very interested in these answers. I do not deny that. I fully support his right to ask the questions. It is quite proper that he put them on the Order Paper.

As a member who used to be able to enjoy that privilege, I assure the hon. member that had I been in his position I would be saying the same as he is. I sympathize fully.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the same question. Having had Questions Nos. 43, 44 and 46 on the Order Paper for 225 days, I would like to know when I might expect replies to the questions.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Soon, Madam Speaker.

On the Order: Government Orders:

December 12, 1994-The Minister of Human Resources Development-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons of Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

Employment Equity Act

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.

Madam Speaker, first let me address what I think is an important parliamentary landmark. In this case we are taking a bill after first reading and directing it specifically to a committee so that it can assist in the drafting of the legislation. It is an indication of the kind of parliamentary reform to which our government became committed after the last election. It would give an opportunity for members of Parliament to consult widely with all groups affected by the proposed bill and to ensure it reflects the broad base of concern.

I thank the House leaders for the opportunity to try a bit of a pilot project in bringing the parliamentary system more into the process of legislative development and blueprinting.

The bill warrants that kind of attention. It is in many ways a very significant piece of legislation because it affects 60 per cent of Canadians. It is something that goes to the heart of the whole question of equality in our society, ensuring we try to eliminate as many barriers as possible to prevent people from going to work.

Over 10 years ago when I was in the previous Liberal government as the minister of employment I had occasion to establish a royal commission under Judge Rosalie Abella who looked at the whole question of employment equity and made a number of recommendations. Unfortunately by the time her report was finished the voters had decided to put Liberals in the position of a sabbatical for a period of years and the government that followed only went forward in a partial way to meet the recommendations of the Abella commission.

I am very pleased today, having been part of the initial start on a new regime for employment equity, to be able now to fulfil the recommendations that were originally presented by Judge Abella on how we could work toward the elimination of systemic discrimination in the workplace. By systemic we mean practices, attitudes and developments that have occurred over many years. It does not mean that somebody is being outright bigoted, but it does mean that over time we have allowed the workplace, as we have in many other parts of society, to provide a series of barriers to various kinds of people.

In this case we have four designated groups: disabled Canadians, women, visible minorities and aboriginal people, all of whom feel they have not been able to secure fair, open and equitable access to the workplace.

In the previous legislation the opportunity to enforce and provide a strong sense of direction was not there. It was simply a reporting information based system.

We are undertaking in the legislation a series of very important further steps to complete and to bring up to date the kind of requirements we need to make employment equity really work.

I think this bill is fair, reasonable and very progressive. For the first time, the federal Public Service will be subject to the Employment Equity Act. Also for the first time, the Human Rights Commission will have the authority to ensure that employers meet their obligations. For instance, the commission may conduct audits of all public sector and private sector employers covered by this legislation.

Basically we are responding to the need to make sure there is proper and fair balance among all employers under the federal jurisdiction. For the first time the Public Service of Canada, involving over 250,000 employees, will be brought under the jurisdiction of this act.

It will require obligations to be met by the armed forces, the RCMP and other areas subject to the final discussions of the President of the Treasury Board to work out matters dealing with operational efficiency and effectiveness.

We have also been giving to the Human Rights Commission, an independent agency responsible to Parliament, the right to begin to enforce these actions by giving it a power to undertake workplace audits. Rather than simply being based on some kind of abstract notion, the Human Rights Commission will now have the responsibility of examining in a wide variety of workplaces exactly in what way they are meeting their requirements under the act to ensure that barriers are brought down, hiring practices are fair, training is offered and facilities are reconstructed to meet the specific requirements to ensure equitable, fair and just treatment in the workplace.

It is our primary hope that kind of audit will be done in a fully co-operative way. Up to this point in time we can say that most private employers have co-operated, because they recognize that employment equity is not purely a matter of human rights, as important as it is. It is also good business. It is good to make the best use of human talent and human resources of whatever kind and in whatever place.

There was an interesting article a month or so ago in the American business magazine, Business Week . The title was something we do not normally see on the cover of Business Week . It was entitled ``Inequality''. The point made in the feature article of the magazine was that one of the major deterrents to economic growth in the United States was the increasing inequality in society.

We are moving into an age where the workplace requires more and more investment in human capital, resources, talent and ability. If we have people on the sidelines, if we marginalize people, if we do not draw upon the best talents, we do not have the full resources brought to bear to make a productive society. There is no question there are barriers in the workplace that inhibit and prevent that from happening.

A good example in Canada is how some of our major banks which come under federal jurisdiction have begun in the last couple of years very major programs of minority hiring. I quote a vice-president of one of the major banks who recently noted the benefits of employment equity practices by saying: "It brings into our business an infusion of new ideas, a broader perspective, better decision making and a greater sensitivity to all approaches".

They are finding that employment equity has substantially added to the productivity and the performance not only of designated workers but all workers. By improving the operation of human resource planning, management and development inside the workplace, designed primarily to ensure fairness and openness, it provides avenues and open doorways for all workers to achieve.

That has met the test of efficiency. We know the ideologues will not believe it but people in business understand it. The people who understand how things work will believe it, but those across the way who scrape their knuckles when they walk will not understand it. Those who are in business understand how it works. That is why it receives that kind of support.

We have consulted very widely on this bill. We have talked to business, federal employers, aboriginal groups, labour groups and disabled Canadians; four million Canadians who have one form of disability or another and have been one of the strongest and most effective lobbies to bring about these kinds of changes in employment equity. They recognize that they have enormous talents to give.

As I have said in another context when we talked about social reform, one of the objectives is to bring down barriers so that people for example who are presently disabled now under many social programs in the provinces have to declare themselves unemployable to get a benefit. At the same time there are also barriers in the workplace.

As the federal government we are working to eliminate those barriers in our own workforce and in all those companies and organizations which come under federal jurisdiction.

What we are proposing today is a major step forward that will really have major benefits. It would clearly signal to over 60 per cent of Canadians that we are prepared to move actively on their behalf to secure fair, equal treatment in the workplace.

That is a message that is long overdue and one that will clearly represent a commitment to fairness in society and a more just treatment of all those Canadians who have felt that for reasons which had nothing to do with their talent or ability, but to open up for the first time the real merit principle. There is no merit principle if there are false barriers, false discriminations and false disincentives in the workplace. The real place we find merit is when one is judged on one's merit not by who one is or what one is, but what one can do.

Finally, I also believe that this will substantially aid and enhance the basic economic position of this country. It will mean we will be able to utilize and draw upon the full range of incredible talent this country has in all its people and not say to some they are second class citizens. Everyone is a first class citizen and is a first class worker under this legislation.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-64 respecting employment equity. Madam Speaker, I shall, if I may, quote the purpose of this legislation as it appears in the text of the bill.

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability.

The bill consists of four parts. First, it sets out the obligations of an employer and outlines reporting requirements. Part II sets out mechanisms for enforcing employer obligations. Part III deals with the assessment of monetary penalties, and Part IV establishes regulation-making authority and provides for other general matters.

The House will recall that the federal government's first affirmative action programs were set up in 1970, following the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. However, the report of the Commission on Equality in Employment-the Abella Commission's report tabled in 1984-was to form the basis for current policies on employment equity.

Adopted in 1986, the Employment Equity Act currently applies to federally regulated employers and Crown corporations that employ 100 or more employees. These are mainly employers that conduct their operations in the banking, transportation and communications sectors which, as you know, are under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-64 will completely change the 1986 legislation, by making it apply to the federal public service, which was not covered before. Considerations to be included in employment equity plans are now better defined. The President of the Treasury Board is to table an annual report. Finally, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be responsible for the enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by certain sections.

Of course, this is nothing new.

You will recall that, in a report tabled on May 14 1992, a special committee recommended that the threshold under which the legislation does not apply be lowered from 100 to 75 employees.

The same report recommended as even more important yet that a national employment equity strategy be developed, a strategy that would include a public education program. And this program, in the opinion of the committee and his chairman, was the most important part of all.

This report was accompanied by a minority report from the Liberal Party, presented by the hon. members for York South-Weston and Halifax. This minority report states that: "Maintaining the current threshold of 100 employees, or even reducing the threshold to 75 as recommended by the Special committee, results in legislation that, in effect, imposes a barrier to designated groups members who prefer to be employed in small business settings". As you can see, the minority report even goes further than the special committee report.

Let me quote again from this minority report, where the hon. member for York South-Weston and the hon. member for Halifax tell us the following: "It is our belief that the Federal Contractors Program presents the government with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the principle of employment equity. The message should be clear and unequivocal-if you want to do business with the federal government, you must implement employment equity in the work place".

These two examples go to show that in those days-this was 1992-employment equity was taken seriously. In fact, this special committee report and minority report have laid the groundwork, I imagine, for the bill before us today.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois believes it is essential to ensure equitable job access to the groups affected by the legislation. We therefore endorse the principle of employment equity. The Bloc certainly supports the inclusion of the public service of Canada within the scope of the act. This was long overdue.

However, the Bloc Quebecois questions the helpfulness of a new governmental measure. As I said earlier, the special committee recommended that adequate resources be provided to the Human Rights Commission, so that it could carry out effectively its new functions. Unfortunately, the Minister of Human Resources Development has stated in a press conference that the commission would have to do more with less. This leaves us somewhat sceptical or at least concerned.

Another difficulty we would like to point out is that employment equity policies should have been adopted a long time ago. They were not. However, the federal government is now in a situation where it must reduce its workforce, which makes it much more difficult to reach equity goals and will limit the impact of this bill to a certain extent.

A bill is a statement of good intentions. However, given the current downsizing of the federal public service, it would be not only desirable but essential for the minister to propose a plan to implement this bill within the public service.

We also remember-as I read a few moments ago in its report-that the special committee had recommended a reduction to 75 employees, while the minority report suggested an even greater reduction. The bill, however, does not provide for such a reduction, even though we think it should.

In conclusion, although the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of employment equity, we will introduce major amendments in committee in order to help improve the effectiveness of this bill.