Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Employment Equity Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we gather to mourn the death of an old friend. We lament the demise of a principle that has guarded the integrity and quality of our public service for almost a century.

The rule of merit has produced a level of quality and impartiality in government that has served Canadians for generations. The merit principle directs that jobs and promotions go to the best qualified, most competent people.

The Liberals began to inch the principle of merit into an early grave a decade ago and Bill C-64 will bang the last few nails into its coffin.

No other principle can withstand the scrutiny of elementary justice. Who should the taxpayer hire? Who deserves a promotion? It is the best and the brightest of course. All Canadians from all groups accept this.

If the minister has his way, jobs and promotions will not necessarily go to the best and brightest, the ones who demonstrate these high qualifications. From the moment this bill is passed the public service will pass over many of the best qualified in favour of those with personal characteristics wholly unrelated to the job.

The government will subordinate the principle of merit to the politics of race and of gender. This is in a time of public service downsizing. The field of opportunity will narrow even further for those who stand outside the four designated groups.

Morale is already low. Morale will take a further blow in the next budget but it will sink through the floor with the passage of this act because thousands of civil servants will be denied a fulfilling career even if they deserve it more than their neighbour.

How do we know the members of a designated group? They are self-identified. This bill encourages a mentality of victimization. It encourages Canadians to view themselves as oppressed people who can gain something by viewing themselves as such.

At present two-thirds of Canada's workforce belong to a designated group. The annual report on the Employment Equity Act says that in 1991 almost 2.3 million Canadians reported having a disability, which would be okay, but it is an increase of 30 per cent from 1986.

This government will only be satisfied when all Canadians count themselves in as victims but not all Canadians buy into this mentality. I want to applaud the seven hundred and sixty some thousand Canadians who refuse to even name their ethnic origin in Canada's last census.

Even though "Canadian" was not given as an ethnic option in this census these seven hundred and some thousand refused to be part of a designated group and pencilled in the word Canadian. I digress.

Let us look at the purpose of the bill for a moment. Its purpose is to mandate a representative workforce. Exactly what is a representative workforce? The government ignores Canada's history and its social norms. It arbitrarily demands that the public service reflect-the word reflect means like a mirror-precisely by occupational group the designated groups as they occur in the larger Canadian workforce.

This is representation according to the bill. Is the workforce so unrepresentative that people are suffering injustice? Are Canadian employers so unfair that they would shut whole groups of people out of the labour market? Is there really a need for employment equity in Canada?

There is not when one looks at the numbers. Let me give members an example of the 570,000 people now regulated under the current Employment Equity Act. Women make up 45.6 per cent but the larger workforce is 45.9 per cent female. There is a .24 per cent difference there-what an injustice. Bring out the legislative hammer. The Liberals are on their high horses, hell bent on stamping out this perceived social evil. It is ridiculous. How does this mentality come about? The Liberal government is driven by special interest groups rather than public interest.

Allow me to quote from the Macdonald commission of 1985 which describes the formulation of section 15(2) of the equality rights section of the Constitution. This section empowers the government to deny equality to all Canadians and give preference to women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled.

The commission said that the government incorporated verbatim the feminist proposal for rewriting the new equality rights section. Liberals have always been driven by political expediency rather than what is fair and equitable. This is another example.

Let us look at more numbers. What about the salaries of visible minorities? Visible minority males make 93 per cent of the salaries of all men in the workforce; visible minority women make 96 per cent of what the average woman makes. Ring the alarm bells. Roll out the legislative guns. We will blast this problem with a massive, coercive, manipulative bureaucracy. That is the Liberal way.

The government is suffering a nauseating attack of self-righteousness. It constantly points the finger of blame at ordinary Canadians, accusing them of unfairness and irresponsibility. What about the three million gun owners for example? No matter that they are responsible and law-abiding, they deserve tough legislation. The government assumes them to be irresponsible, suspicious, maybe even dangerous.

If the workplace is not precisely representative down to the last decimal point, the government aims its legislative guns. According to the Liberal government Canadian employers cannot be trusted to be fair to their workers. The government must regulate them more with some heavy-handed laws.

In fact Canadian employers are fair and the numbers show it. When situations of equal choice are compared, when we compare apples to apples, there is no discrimination. According to Statistics Canada, for example in 1992, single women made 99 per cent of the salaries of single men. Other salary differences can be explained by lifestyle choices and choices that prefer family over career. This is not a matter of injustice. It is a matter of personal priority and social norms.

What is the Reform answer? The market, not the government, should regulate the makeup of the workplace. Having a representative work force simply makes good business sense. Companies which do not hire the most productive people, companies that do not hire people that reflect their own markets, will be driven out of the market, and so be it. The market will impose its own discipline on the workplace in the private sector.

What is the role of government in the public sector? The government's role is to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians, to dismantle systemic barriers, help with education and make sure that employment information is available, reasonably accommodate for disabilities and make employment testing fair for everybody.

Equality of opportunity ensures that everybody has an equal chance. It creates a level playing field, not a field that is tilted in favour of special interest groups. No legislation is required, no bureaucracy, minimal expense, and no coercive quotas.

I want to address quotas in the context of Bill C-64. Quotas are requirements for hiring certain numbers of designated people within certain time frames. The legislation specifically disavows quotas by name in section 31, but on the other hand it imposes all the elements of quotas in other sections.

The bill sets up quotas in disguise. Let me describe them to you. First, the employer must audit the entire workforce, then establish a timetable for correcting any unrepresentativeness with so-called numerical goals for hiring, both short term and long term, then submit a report by June 1 of every year to the government. The employer is forced by law to consult with the union when it makes its plan.

The plan must include steps that will make reasonable progress toward these goals, and the word reasonable is of course defined by the government body in charge. What is the defining enforcement body? None other than the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that group of new moral crusaders, the witch hunters of political correctness. The act creates a new big brother, compliance auditors, to go over the employers' plans and reports.

If the compliance auditors at the commission do not like the plan, the steps, the goals, the auditor can do a compliance audit. He can walk into the business at any time and demand any confidential documents. The bill even specifies that he can use the employer's photocopier to copy them. Then the auditor gives a summary order to the employer to change his plans.

If numerical goals are not quotas I will eat my hat. If the employer does not like it he can go to a new creation of the act, another one, an even bigger brother, an employment equity review tribunal which can be made up of just one person, a tribunal of one person, but possess all the powers of any other quasi-judicial body in Canada. Its orders have the power of the Federal Court and if the employer does not like what the tribunal says he must appeal to the Appeals Court of Canada. This is nonsense.

The fines attached to this bill are absolutely punitive; $10,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for each one thereafter. All of the elements of quotas are there: the plans, the reporting and specific timetables, the investigations and the sanctions. Last night the human rights commissioner said jokingly: "We hope to be able to get compliance without using handcuffs and billy clubs". That is a nice, perverse joke but Canadians will not find it very funny.

My last point is this. What is the cost of this boondoggle? In the United States where quotas were created in 1970 the cost of affirmative action was estimated at 4 per cent of the GDP, $112 billion U.S. a year. In Canada there are no clear estimates but the Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimates that a company with 500 employees will spend $100,000 just to comply with the paperwork.

This bill is utterly offensive.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be associated with my colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of State for Training and Youth, in bringing to the House a proposal for the new employment equity act.

We are certain the parliamentary committee that will review this bill will be very attentive to the views of interested people and to various groups on this matter. We are looking forward to the discussions in committee and to the debate in the House.

The Prime Minister had it right when he addressed the French Senate a short time ago. He said that because of the sacrifices and efforts of the women and men who have come from the four corners of the world, we have succeeded in building in Canada a society that is pluralistic and equitable and that is founded on open-mindedness, tolerance, generosity and sharing.

As citizens of this country, we can be proud of the progress our society has made. I do not believe that Canadians have finished evolving. Although we have made remarkable progress towards equity, I do not think that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute fully.

We all know there is room for more open-mindedness, more tolerance, more generosity and more sharing. That is what employment equity is all about. It is a policy of inclusion, not exclusion; of openness, not discrimination; of sharing, not restricting. That is what my hon. friend does not seem to get through his head.

It was in the 1970s that greater attention began to be paid to questions of equity and equality. One consequence was the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even before that, Parliament enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act and the first steps were taken toward a policy of affirmative action that became in due course employment equity.

What employment equity seeks to do is to break down barriers to equality in the workplace, that is to ensure that no person is denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. At the same time it puts in place measures to assist in creating a level playing field for aboriginal peoples, for persons with disabilities, for persons in a visible minority and for women.

On a wall in Ottawa that is otherwise undistinguished someone has scrawled: "Equal treatment does not equal equality". Employment equity recognizes that truth. Differences must be recognized and accepted if there is to be greater equality. The fact of recognizing these differences and doing something to diminish them does not constitute discrimination, as some may claim. On the contrary, it contributes to the equality of opportunity of all citizens and does not diminish any.

Some examples concerning the four designated groups may explain how employment equity is pursued in the public service and indeed often in the private sector as well. Although women are entering the public service in greater numbers than in the past, they are clustered in large measure in what are called pink ghettos. They are heavily represented in fields such as teaching, nursing and clerical work. Women working full time earn less than three-quarters of what men make. In the public service women constitute about 85 per cent of the administrative support category, the clerical workers, but only about 18 per cent of the executive group.

It was recognized some years ago that if women were to become managers in the public service, they would need assistance in overcoming the barriers they faced. Among the measures put in place was a bureau within the Public Service Commission to help women prepare themselves for tasks that had for a long time been almost the exclusive preserve of men.

Alternative work arrangements were introduced as well. These arrangements vary from tele-work to job sharing. Managers are encouraged to permit all employees to take advantage of these if possible, if it makes sense. Nevertheless, women need these alternative arrangements more because they still carry the major burden of family responsibilities.

Recently the pension provisions were amended so that part time employees could contribute. Again both men and women are eligible, but we know that 26 per cent of women work part time as compared to 10 per cent of men.

These are the fruits of a consciousness that includes employment equity. The progress that has been made, however, still leaves women far from equal. Corporate culture has to change too. There has to be a willingness to encourage the contributions of women and of all employees. That is also a matter of employment equity.

The accommodations made for persons with disabilities would be applauded by all members of the House. The Government of Canada has a policy to make its facilities accessible to all Canadians with disabilities, whether they are members of the public or employees.

A policy encourages departments to provide their employees who have disabilities with the technical aids they need to accomplish their jobs. That policy is backed up with a fund that has been placed at the disposal of the Public Service Commission. As an example, if a person who is visually impaired needs a computer with a voice synthesizer, then one will be provided.

In some departments, people with learning disabilities were hired to do work that others might not have found stimulating. The results were outstanding. That is employment equity at work.

In another government department students with disabilities were hired under a special program for two summers in a row. The students acquired workplace knowledge and skills that they might not otherwise have been able to gain. Perhaps even more important, the project has worked to break down the psychological barriers that persons with disabilities face. It also served to

prove that persons with disabilities can be as productive as other employees. They too have abilities.

This was no doubt what the Governor General had in mind when he said earlier this month on the International Day of Disabled Persons that individuals with a disability are often marginalized by discrimination and that their opportunities are diminished by ignorance. Employment equity exists to open the doors to persons with disabilities so that they too can participate fully in the workplace.

A recent Statistics Canada study showed that among well-educated persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and persons of visible minority, the earning gap was closing. Although 1990 university graduates with disabilities earn some 7 per cent less than other graduates, the more important gap is in employment rates. Among university graduates with disabilities the employment rate is 6 percentage points lower than for other graduates. The gap is 12 per cent for community college graduates. Even those with relatively minor limitations have more difficulty in finding jobs than other graduates.

The story is about the same for aboriginal people. Aboriginal graduates from community colleges in 1990 have an unemployment rate that is almost 10 per cent higher than other community college graduates. The playing field simply is not level. There are a number of tools available to level the playing field. One used by the Public Service Commission is to enrich the pool of candidates. You will not have any aboriginal employees if you do not have any aboriginal candidates. You will not have the candidates if you do all the hiring through word of mouth. Even then you may not have a good selection of aboriginal candidates to consider. They may not come forward perhaps because they believe that they would not be selected. Therefore, you need a program of outreach not to guarantee a job but to provide assurances that they can compete with the principle of merit. The principle of merit is paramount in our system in the Public Service of Canada.

Once an aboriginal employee has been hired the manager may find that a certain amount of cultural adaptation is required both in his part and on the part of the employee.

Persons in visible minorities are also under-represented in the public service in comparison with the members in the workforce. Like women and persons with disabilities, persons in a visible minority are of all backgrounds. Some are recent immigrants and some have been here for decades or hundreds of years such as the black people from Nova Scotia.

One of the problems faced by the public service is that although persons in a visible minority are fairly well represented in the scientific and professional category they are not moving up in proportional numbers into the ranks of senior management. A part of the solution was found within the framework of employment equity programs in the form of a special course that we developed through the Canadian centre for management development to help certain people to develop their management skills.

Finally, whether these candidates succeed will depend on their qualifications and ability. The merit principle must govern and the person considered to be the most competent-

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the tabling of Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. This bill is important for federally regulated work places. It revokes the current Employment Equity Act adopted eight years ago.

Despite the very laudable intentions behind this first Act, it was harshly criticized by informed observers. The present government is now trying to correct some deficiencies. We certainly intend to help it improve its performance.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made three promises on employment equity. First, it promised to extend the scope of the law to federal boards and agencies. It also promised to empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct legal inquiries on issues related to employment equity. Finally, it promised to require firms that are awarded federal government contracts to comply with employment equity provisions.

So what were we presented with yesterday in this House, Madam Speaker? We were presented with a bill that in effect extends the law to the federal public service, its boards and agencies. It seems that this was the government's first objective. Bravo! The Bloc Quebecois applauds any initiative to ensure equal access to employment for all, including native people, the disabled, women and members of visible minorities.

The Bloc Quebecois also supports the principle of legislation forcing employers to comply with the principle of equal opportunity. Since in our opinion the government must set an example for the private sector, any new legislation had to extend the application of employment equity measures to its own departments. I might add, Madam Speaker, that it was high time.

Bill C-64 also empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine whether the provisions of the legislation are being complied with and to investigate the enforcement of the law. It also establishes an employment equity tribunal when circumstances warrant it. That is all very good, Madam Speaker.

It appears, however, that the government's third promise, concerning the application of the law to all government contractors, will not be kept. I will return to this point a little later in my speech. As you might expect, we appreciate the government's effort, but everything is not perfect either.

A committee will review the bill, but I would like to raise a few points that struck me. First of all, as I just said, I am disappointed with the lack of provisions concerning government contractors. The bill in no way extends the law to this category of employers, and this is regrettable.

Indeed, at the very beginning of the act, a "private sector employer" is defined as "any person who employs one hundred or more employees". You can understand my disappointment, as well as that of many observers. Why does that act not apply to other private sector employers who win contracts for which they are paid with public money? Should we not ensure that taxpayers' money be used in places where employment equity is valued and respected? I believe so, but this government seems to think otherwise. We will get back to this issue in committee.

I also wonder about the delays in tabling these legislative amendments. Why did the government wait for more than one year after the swearing-in of the new team to amend the act? It is certainly not because of the deficit, since this bill, unlike others, has virtually no financial impact on public money. This legislation is primarily one of a moral nature; it could have been introduced early, to emphasize the importance of the social justice which we seek to establish.

This delay is also unfortunate because, in the current context, the new legislation will definitely not help achieve employment equity. Just think of the hiring freeze, of the fact that employees cannot move on to the next salary step, and the massive reductions in the federal public service. This is unfortunate and we deplore this situation. In spite of its laudable objectives, the new legislative policy will not give results before many years, thus once again hurting the same categories of people.

Previous employment equity policies have had a very limited impact. For example, over a period of six years, the number of promotions for full-time employees in all private sectors of activity improved a mere three per cent in the case of women, 0.49 per cent for aboriginal people, 1.11 per cent for handicapped people, and 3.82 per cent for members of visible minorities. These are, in my opinion, very poor results, considering that the act has already been in effect for eight years.

The figures are not much better when it comes to recruiting. Indeed, the situation improved by 2.4 per cent for women, 1.30 per cent for aboriginal people, 0.98 per cent for handicapped people, and 2.91 per cent for members of visible minorities.

As for the public service, in 1986, Treasury Board adopted a policy reflecting the spirit of this legislation, but as far as representation in management positions is concerned, aboriginal people still represent only 1.1 per cent of the total number of public servants; persons with disabilities, 2.1 per cent; members of visible minorities, 2.1 per cent; and women, 15.8 per cent. The situation is clearly not any better in the federal Public Service than it is in the private sector, hence our conclusion that the measures that have been in place so far have not improved the participation of members of designated groups.

According to the statistics, very few members of these groups are in senior management positions and women still work mostly in office jobs, sales and services. So the situation is far from ideal, as the minister pointed out earlier.

I think we will have to examine the available information very carefully to determine why previous policies did not work.

In concluding, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes a bill that broadens the application of employment equity measures to include the entire public service. However, we believe the bill could be significantly improved so as to obtain better results and meet the objectives of this legislation. We will gladly make suggestions to the government during consideration of the bill in committee.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk to the House today about the need for and the many benefits of the proposed amendments to the Employment Equity Act. Once read, once well understood, if people are familiar with the history of how this has all come about, there is no need for the fearmongering and the falsification of information going on here today.

It should be stated clearly that what the employment equity legislation does is reinforce the merit principle. It states that very clearly. That may be a bit problematic to some because I guess some would feel a bit more comfortable knowing that there are flaws and gaps. Really what we have done is given prominence to the merit principle. Not only that, we also looked for a balanced approach of trying to integrate the four target groups in a very enforceable way into the whole labour market and also to express equity as it should be.

I do not think there is any fear with all these people fearmongering about their jobs, including the hon. members across the way scaring people by saying that what is going to happen if we do hire disabled people, women, aboriginals and visible minorities is that these people will not be hired meritoriously.

This is erroneous and this is clearly discriminatory. It is an assumption, a false assumption. Because those four target groups are going to be aided by this legislation, it is perfectly acceptable that this happens considering the gross under-representation of those groups. It is a wrong that has not been corrected.

There have been many barriers. There have been many obstacles and this is a step forward. It is needless for people to put fear in the hearts of those people who have jobs out there, particularly those people who are highly placed.

Members need not worry because these four target groups are so under-represented as of yet. It will take such a long time. It will still be such a big struggle. This will make it easy but it is not going to be just the legislation that is going to make it happen.

Unfortunately some of the greatest obstacles we will have are attitudes of people. We can put legislation there to help but unfortunately we cannot change the minds of all those people who are otherwise inclined.

The equity is not simply the subject of ideological debate for me and many other members of this House. For those of us who are women, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities or aboriginal people, employment equity is fundamentally about democracy. It is the freedom to exercise our rights to participate fully in the political process, to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of our nation.

Employment equity means ensuring that all Canadians have a fair chance in the workplace. It ensures that no person is denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. It involves identifying and eliminating barriers, taking special measures and making reasonable accommodations.

As was stated by the hon. member, there are no quotas. For instance, if 25 per cent of the population is aboriginal in a said province and there is a thousand-person company and there is not one aboriginal person, is it not reasonable to assume that company or other companies like it would want to achieve that kind of representation of that population? That is not unreasonable. That is not discriminatory. That is perfectly logical, perfectly acceptable and it is the way things should evolve if we are to show the dignity and the respect of one another as human beings.

It also talks about equality, the opportunity of equality. That seems to fail some people. In short, employment equity means ensuring that employment opportunities are open to those who have historically been arbitrarily excluded. We need not go into the figures. We all know what they are. It is a fact that is well known to many of us, including hon. members opposite.

This bill is a fulfilment of this government's vision of our country, one in which each of us has equal access to employment opportunities and a chance to fully share in Canada's prosperity. Why should some people be on the periphery of prosperity? Why should they not be sharing in the wealth of this country in terms of jobs, promotions and training? Why not adopt this legislation fully? All members of the House should see the historical isolation and marginalization of target groups in our population and that those who need a helping hand and logical reasoning, those who need that acceptance, should be accepted.

By strengthening the employment equity act we are reconfirming the core values Canadians hold dear: fairness, decency, and equality for every citizen in this nation. Canada is known around the world for that. We are citizens of the world. We are recognized for that. Why would we not enhance that within our own country?

Equality does not come easily in Canada. It is a source of national shame that as recently as the 1950s the first peoples of this country were subject to laws which prevented them from leaving reserves without a bureaucrat's permission. It is a known fact that our people were going to war and fighting for this country as First Nations people and they did not have the right to vote. Women were not even considered persons in the eyes of the law until October 1929 when women won the famous Persons case and gained the right to become members of the Senate.

According to the 1993 annual report on employment equity we still have not come close to attaining our goals. According to the most recent census aboriginal peoples continue to be under-represented in the workforce at just 1.04 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the Canadian workforce.

Aboriginal people continue to occupy the lowest paying jobs. The wage gap between aboriginal men and women working full time and other Canadians has actually increased since 1987. Mind you it should be noted by all members of this House that aboriginal people on average still make an annual income of $10,000.

Aboriginal participation in the workforce has risen by less than .5 per cent since employment equity came into effect. This is even though the number of employable aboriginal people rose by almost 50 per cent during the years 1986 to 1991.

The plight of persons with disabilities is not much better. The representation of this group in the workforce has changed very slowly. They are equally under-represented in the labour market especially given that the number of Canadians with disabilities increased from 5.4 to 6.5 per cent of the population over the same five year period.

It is simply unacceptable that today in Canada a woman still earns only 70 per cent of her male counterpart's wages, or that a person of colour is denied a promotion on the basis of his or her skin colour.

The litmus test of Canadians' commitment to true equality is access to employment. Jobs are the key to social and economic integration into the community. They are a source of fulfilment and independence for all Canadians. As the Prime Minister would say, a job gives you self-respect and dignity. Jobs are part of this government's agenda.

Employment equity ensures that those jobs will be available to everyone without any barriers. By the turn of the century two-thirds of the entrants to the workforce will be women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities. This country needs the wealth of their talents.

With this bill we want to achieve a better balance that works to the advantage of all Canadians. This legislation does not set out to redress the difficulties being faced by disadvantaged groups by creating new problems for other Canadians. The amendments are designed to clarify and strengthen existing laws, not to increase the regulatory or financial burdens to employers.

Madam Speaker, I know I am out of time so I will skip a great deal of what I had to say which I think was also important. I will conclude by saying that by assuring equal access to employment and fair treatment of all, we can and will build a better nation for our children, for our families and for all Canadians.

Remember that 60 per cent of the Canadian population is constituted by these four target groups but they are not adequately represented. It should be noted that we are talking about fair representation, not under-representation. We are talking about equality of opportunity.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

Reform opposes this type of legislation and I certainly oppose it. Affirmative action by any other name is still affirmative action. It leads to the creation of special designation groups and causes reverse discrimination as the process of merit hiring is forced to take a back seat to artificially created criteria.

The annual report of employment equity for 1994 clearly shows there is no need for this legislation. Visible minorities represent 8 per cent of the workforce governed by the current act compared to 9 per cent of the entire Canadian workforce. The report also states that women represent 45 per cent of the workforce covered by the existing act compared to 45 per cent of the entire Canadian labour force. These two facts alone show that a hiring process unencumbered by government regulations is able to adequately address this issue.

In our lifetime let us admit it, we have seen terrible inequities. Going back to the thirties and forties, there have been gross inequities in our social system but they are being corrected over the years. Human dignity and human will are creating the redress.

I find it amazing that this government feels a need to interfere with the free job market which is working well when it fails to use the same urgency to address real issues like the debt and the deficit. Why do I say the government is acting with urgency? This bill was tabled in the House yesterday, shortly after 1500 hours. The ink on that official document could hardly have been dry at the time. I did not get to read the bill until this morning. Yet here we are less than 24 hours after its introduction being asked to debate the bill's merit. That is acting with a sense of urgency but I think it might be more accurately described as an abuse of the democratic process.

I saw the converse in this House this morning when my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, was speaking on Motion No. 13 and wanted to continue debate on it. Those on the government benches said: "Oh no, we cannot do that. We did not have enough notice". They had 48 hours' notice to continue debate but that was not sufficient for them.

Why the urgency on this bill? I do not know. Are the Liberals afraid to have the complete details of the bill brought to the attention of the Canadian public, or are they simply afraid to tell Canadians about the bureaucratic maze which has to be created by this bill?

One thing I do know is that the business people in my constituency are fed up to the teeth with government bureaucracy, with more and more taxes and more and more regulations to adhere to and forms to fill out. Canadian employers are already deluged with government imposed paperwork.

That burden is increased even more through clauses 9 to 18 of this bill which call for the collection, analysis and review of their workforce leading to the preparation of an employment equity plan, complete with long term and short term numerical goals. There is also the requirement that an annual report on employment equity be filed with the minister. Let us look at the bill.

Clause 9 states that for the purposes of implementing employment equity every employer shall collect information and conduct an analysis of the employer's workforce in accordance with the regulations in order to determine the degree of under-representation, et cetera. It goes on about conducting a review of the employer's employment systems, policies and practices in accordance with the regulations. It is only those employees who identify themselves or agree to be identified by employers as aboriginal peoples, et cetera.

Clause 10 indicates that employers shall prepare an employment equity plan that does this, that and the other thing.

Let us look a bit more at this bill which will totally discourage private enterprise. It will specify the measure to be taken by the employer. It will establish a timetable for the implementation. Where under-representation has been identified it will establish short term goals. It goes on and on and on.

Clause 11: Every employer shall ensure that its employment equity plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress.

Clause 12: Every employer shall make reasonable efforts to monitor implementation.

Clause 13 indicates that every employer shall update numerical goals at least once during the period.

Clause 14: Every employer shall consult with his employees by inviting representatives to provide their views.

It goes on and on and on. Thirty pages of bureaucracy imposed on employers around this country. Have I said that they are already deluged? Well they certainly are. All these measures will only serve to undermine the productivity of Canadian business as executives are forced to spend even more of their already limited time on needless government paperwork.

Clause 21 of the bill creates employment equity compliance review officers, or to use a less politically correct term, an affirmative action army. This army has the authority to enter any business which it feels is contravening the act and demand documents and the co-operation of the employer and staff. On reading part II of this bill I thought George Orwell would be very proud as big brother takes yet another step into our lives.

Clause 25 creates the headquarters or the command post for the affirmative action army with the establishment of an employment equity review tribunal. More bureaucracy and more tax dollars dropped into the bottomless pit that is the national debt. This government continues to talk fiscal restraint yet its actions do not match its words.

I would go further into the analysis of this bill but the government's haste to ram it through prohibits any more thorough examination.

In my own riding, residents of the city of Nanaimo are well aware of the adverse effects of this type of legislation. Several years ago the city implemented pay equity which resulted in an immediate and significant tax increase. It also has a lasting effect on the taxpayer in that the result is that the annual salary for an entry level employee will soon reach $30,000.

Another example of this type of policy was brought to my attention recently by a constituent. This young man is an exceptional student in a technical program at Malaspina College. His high marks caused the institute to nominate him for a federal scholarship. While his marks qualified him for the award, his gender did not.

The scholarships are handed out on the basis of gender. Since Malaspina did not have a female student with appropriate grades the qualified student was refused and both scholarships were given to another institution. This is the type of reverse discrimination this sort of legislation will create.

I will wind up if my time is up. Hiring policies should not be based upon race, culture or gender. They should be colour blind and gender neutral. If ever a bill epitomizes the difference in philosophy between the Liberals and I might even say the NDP and the Reform Party, this is it.

Canadians are hard pressed for programs they want and they cannot afford to pay for programs we do not need. In the interests of the already overburdened taxpayers, I urge the government to abandon this nonsensical legislation.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is evident that the member who has just spoken is rather ill informed because he has just quoted provisions that have been in legislation for over seven years, suggesting to the public that they are new provisions, some new burden.

I think he has also failed to point out to Canadians that the minister has taken the unusual step of giving an extra stage of debate on this bill, not curtailing debate, by having this discussion in the House before referring it to a committee where it will be subject to full, open discussion and consultation and will come back to the House for at least two more stages of debate. I do not know how much more open a process can be.

One of my proudest accomplishments during the last Parliament as a member was to be able to move in committee and have accepted in this Parliament amendments to the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act that required the Public Service of Canada to live by the same rules with respect to employment equity that the act imposes on private sector employers.

It was done in this simple way, by embarrassing the government, by saying for over five years now you have had regulations imposed on the private sector that you refuse to live by. If we want to set an example as government, we have to be prepared to say that there is one set of rules for everybody. If it is good enough for the private sector it is good enough for the public sector.

The member should applaud what this bill does. It precisely says that there is no longer one legislation for the private sector and another for the public sector. We are all going to live by the same rules with respect to employment equity.

The legislation on employment equity has been in place since 1987.

Despite considerable progress, most aboriginal people, women, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities who do have work continue to have low paying jobs. More specifically, employers and employees know they are not enjoying the many benefits of employment equity. In fact, diversity is a way to enhance the work environment and thus increase productivity.

By expanding the application of this legislation to the federal public service, we will provide many opportunities for persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and women.

Notwithstanding the howls from the Reform members who wished to hang on to the privileges that people just like them have enjoyed for a long time, this legislation is not about introducing bias. This legislation is about removing bias in hiring and retention of employees and in promotion. This is not about abandoning the merit principle. It is about reaffirming and fulfilling the merit principle.

For 75 years we have had in the Government of Canada the principle that you get hired on the basis of your ability and no other. Despite that we have a senior management category with less than 18 per cent women. There are the lower echelons of the lowest paid workers, 80 per cent women. Even within those lowest paid categories, guess who rises to the top in those lowest paid categories? It is not the 80 per cent of employees in those categories who are women, but mostly men.

There are numerous examples. We only have to look at the statistics of the number of referrals for employment in the public service last year; for example, 8.2 per cent referrals for positions. These were people who had already been screened as qualified. There were 8.1 per cent of a visible minority, but only 2.5 per cent of hirings were of a visible minority. There is a bias operating there and we have to take a great deal more time than we have today to look at why that is.

Let me touch some highlights. There are perceptions and attitudes: "I have always seen a certain kind of person succeed and fit well into management and therefore that is the kind of person I want to hire". These are not deliberately, consciously biased attitudes but they are attitudes that clearly influence who gets hired, who gets the opportunities to train, to get promoted, to get career development opportunities.

It affects the other side in terms of who applies. We apply for jobs where we see ourselves fitting in and succeeding. Unfortunately most women, most aboriginal people, most people with disabilities, most people from visible minority groups have not seen themselves being hired and progressing to the upper echelons in the public service.

The working environment creates an atmosphere in which one either flourishes or does not. Our working environment has not been conducive to people of different backgrounds being hired, being promoted, fitting in well and moving up the ranks.

We know that in a time of downsizing it is going to be extremely difficult to achieve some of our targets in the public service, to really move to a public service that is more representative of the taxpayers of Canada and of the people we serve. We all know that understanding our clients is an important part of being able to serve them well.

We have to make this effort notwithstanding hiring freezes, downsizing and so on. Twenty-five hundred people were hired in the public service last year. There were tens of thousands of promotions, movements, development appointments, and that is where we can certainly make some progress.

I mentioned this bill will be going to committee. We are not here to debate even approval in principle of the bill. The minister has chosen to forego that, to get that whole issue in front of a committee for examination of the bill, so it can save the time and money of duplicating effort to consider a bill and also to conduct a review of the existing act.

I want to make some suggestions to the committee as it receives this bill and considers it. I really have a hard time justifying to myself why the armed forces, the RCMP and CSIS are exempted from this legislation unless they are included later by order in council. I am sure there are private sector employers who have equally valid reasons to feel they should be exempted, but we have chosen not to do that. I urge the committee to look at that.

I urge the committee to look at defining compliance and to ensure that compliance is not simply depositing a report. I urge the committee to look at contracting, because we are now developing a shadow public service through contracting that has no obligation to pay attention to the merit principle or to employment equity or to a number of other government policies. Let me cite one case. I am aware of a man and a woman employed through a government agency to do exactly the same kind of work with exactly the same kind of qualifications. Earning a $100 difference, guess who was earning the lesser amount?

The purpose here is improving, giving everybody the opportunity to participate fully in the economic recovery this country is heading into. I want to point out that we are talking here not about privileges for minorities. We are talking about equal treatment. Unless the Reform Party cares to make the argument that inherently women, people of colour, people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples are less capable, then it can only accept the reason they have not progressed in the public service or in the private sector is some inherent preference for a different kind of candidate.

We are talking about the majority of Canadian workers and giving that majority who fit in one of these categories equal opportunity to succeed and to prosper in the Canada of the future.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-64. The purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

This new act will replace the existing act, which was passed in 1986. It will apply to federally regulated employers and Crown corporations that employ one hundred or more employees.

The bill will extend the scope of the legislation to include the public service of Canada. It is a good idea to extend the scope of such a major piece of legislation. Perhaps it should be extended to all employers in the private sector, all employers in the public service of Canada and all portions of the public sector that employ not 100, but 75 employees, including the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Parliament and every federally regulated agency, commission and board.

The legislation requires the employer to implement employment equity by either eliminating barriers against persons in designated groups or by making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that these persons achieve a degree of representation that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce.

However, the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to take measures that would cause him or her undue hardship.

This means that the employer is free to comply or not. With the help of legal counsel, the employer can easily demonstrate that hiring a person with a disability, for example, will cause undue hardship. The onus will rest with the employee. Who will dare challenge an employer who does not comply with the act?

We cannot say that much progress have been made in terms of employment equity since 1970, after the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report. In fact, hardly any progress has been made.

Later attempts, in 1984 and 1986, were scarcely more successful. In 1993, aboriginal people accounted for some 2 per cent of the federal public service workforce; persons with disabilities, 3 per cent; members of visible minorities, 3 per cent, and women, 46 per cent, but were confined in lower-paid and precarious jobs.

Women account for only 17 per cent of the executive group, while the disabled, Natives and visible minorities have not yet reached the executive level. Representation is almost nil. The majority of them hold office, sales or service jobs.

It is too little too late, as the new legislation does not set any specific objectives for the department. Everything is left to the minister's discretion. This is a government panicked by unemployment, an increasingly challenged social program reform, phoney pre-budget consultations, casual budget preparation, cuts in essential services instead of fat-trimming, a caucus divided on several issues, including the Young Offenders Act, the firearms registration legislation, the amendment to the Canadian Charter prohibiting any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether or not Quebec members should get involved in Quebec's referendum debate, the next Cabinet shuffle where many are called but few are chosen, and an anti-scab bill which is not forthcoming. I could go on and on about the differences of opinion within the Liberal caucus only a year after they came to office.

So the government tried to regain its prestige by introducing a bill. This employment equity bill, however, still creates dissension, the minister aiming for the status quo while other members join the Bloc Quebecois in asking the government to broaden the scope of the Employment Equity Act.

The guiding principle of the bill should be that anyone working for, subsidized by or doing business with the federal government or one of its boards, agencies or commissions is subject to the bill. We must go further. Employment equity policies should have been adopted a long time ago.

The minister thinks he can meet his objectives while the federal government is cutting its workforce. He will have trouble carrying out his plans in this era of cutbacks and hiring freezes. The minister's pensive expression in this morning's newspapers explains everything. In addition to the reform being

challenged, he is now faced with a bill showing his intention to maintain the status quo.

A sovereign Quebec will defend vigorously equal opportunities for women, disabled, natives, visible minorities and men.

These groups are still far from occupying their rightful places and enjoying the same conditions in most areas of public life. A higher proportion of these groups live in poverty. Their income remains lower than that of men, in general.

A sovereign Quebec will resolutely fight poverty by going to the root of the problem. Yes, it is possible to break the vicious circle of poverty and dependency, provided we increase employability without making distinctions between categories of people.

Why do we have to implement an act to restore a natural right? These people are victims of the current political system, with its inconsistent tax measures affecting the groups targeted by this bill, and duplication, because two levels of government operate in fields such as manpower training and family support.

Through sovereignty, Quebec will be able to patriate and restructure programs, so as to develop an efficient and consistent policy for these groups, namely women, aboriginal and disabled people, as well as visible minorities.

It goes without saying that the scope of the act must be extended. The federal government must really take concrete action regarding this depressing climate of discrimination experienced by women and the other groups targeted in the legislation. This part of our labour force has the right to take its place. We must strive to achieve equality and social justice. This is why the Bloc will introduce amendments to this bill, when it is examined in committee.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I too want an opportunity to elaborate on some features of the legislation before us. I say to the minister that I am proud the government has tabled such progressive amendments that I believe will strengthen the Employment Equity Act.

The changes proposed will assure fair and equal treatment for millions of disadvantaged Canadians. These amendments offer the hope of better times for women, for persons with disabilities, for aboriginal peoples and for members of visible minorities.

Since the adoption of the Employment Equity Act there has been significant progress in making the workplace more inclusive of all Canadians. It has been proven that employment equity can promote fairness and equal opportunity in the world of work. The present legislation was a good beginning but has not kept pace with the times, and hence the need for the amendments now before us.

More and more Canadians are members of designated groups, yet the sad fact is that despite the increase in their numbers their opportunities have actually decreased. For example, the latest annual report on employment equity indicates that in 1993 the number of employees covered under the Employment Equity Act actually dropped by 4.27 per cent or by 26,000 jobs across the country.

According to the statistics for 1994, 74 of the 348 companies covered under the Employment Equity Act 74 or 20 per cent had no aboriginal employees at all. There were 65 of those companies with no provision for persons with disabilities on the payroll and 28 of those companies had no visible minority members working for them. There were still four employers with no women on their staffs. This is in a country where 52 per cent of the people are women.

Can we fathom any company of any significant size not even bothering to address that question? Were I malicious-and you would know, Madam Speaker, that I could never be malicious-I would wonder aloud whether such an exclusion of women by those four companies was not deliberate. How could they manage in a situation where half the available workforce is women to hire everyone but women unless they worked at it? Hence the need for the kinds of amendments we are talking about today.

Obviously much more remains to be done if we are to live up to the values of fairness, decency and equality which form the foundation of our society, our system of values in the country.

We need to bring the act into the nineties to reflect our current reality and to prepare us for the century ahead. That is precisely the kind of country we as a party promised Canadians when we wrote "Creating Opportunity".

The amendments before us are the fulfilment of our red book commitments. We said that we would bring the federal public service as well as federal agencies and commissions under the Employment Equity Act. We are doing that with this legislation. We said that we would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to initiate investigations and conduct workplace audits to ensure enforcement of the legislation. We are doing that. We said that we would ensure federal contractors would be subject to mandatory compliance with the principles of the act.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Quota.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

The member for St. Albert is having difficulty because he sees quotas. I say to him that he is in the House of Commons because of a quota system. We did not just go out to all Canadians, elect a bunch of people and send them to Ottawa. The act which gives him the right to be here is a quota system as such. His constituents in St. Albert get one member of Parlia-

ment, not one and half, two or three. I say to him that is called quota.

He is right. He must have been up bright and early this morning. He recognizes this business here as a quota system and he is absolutely dead right. I assume from his intervention that he is so anxious to support the legislation he cannot wait for me to finish.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

He must be. I can tell.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

He must be. With the bill we will deliver on the promises in the red book. Does that come as any surprise?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Not a bit.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Once again the authors of the red book are delivering on the promises in the red book.

We used to sing in the church I am proud to be a member of: "Every promise in the book is mine". We are talking about another book here. I do not want to be sacrilegious, but I am sure members get the point. We identify with those promises because they are promises we fabricated in opposition having listened to the people and without any 1-900 lines. We did not have them pay to get through to us. We listened and they told us they had some concerns about employment equity, our subject today.

We heard them and we incorporated those concerns in commitments. We ran on that basis. We were elected to a majority government on that basis. We are back here this afternoon as we have been several other mornings and afternoons to say to the people of Canada: "Here is another example of how we want to honour the commitments we made to you back in October a year or so ago".

While today we deliver on some promises, we believe we must go even further. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, constituted as the employment equity review tribunal, will hear appeals from employers to resolve disputes and to assure compliance with the law.

Let me remind the House that the changes to the act are in direct response to issues raised by both the designated groups and by businesses. Disadvantaged Canadians complained to us there was not enough compliance with the legislation. Accordingly we have given new authority to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct audits of employers to verify and gain compliance with the act.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Quotas.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

For my friend from St. Albert, let me decode that. We have given new authority to the Human Rights Commission to enforce those terrible quotas, the very system that sent him to the Chamber. We are going to enforce it on behalf of some other people, many of whom are his constituents.

I venture to say there are some women in his riding who could benefit from the legislation, women who have been excluded effectively from employment because of some unwitting employer. Maybe he has some aboriginal people in his riding. I do not know it well but there are probably a few of them who could benefit.

I see the Chair is getting impatient because I am running the clock again. I had all these other wonderful things I wanted to say for the edification of members of the House. More to the point, I say to all who are watching and listening that the legislation is a good piece of legislation. It will take us that extra step toward assuring employment equity for the designated groups, for the women I have mentioned and for other groups that were mentioned during the debate. That is why I appeal to my colleagues of whatever party to find it in their hearts and minds to give support to this good piece of legislation.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, since this is a very new piece of legislation, for the benefit of those Canadians who watch the proceedings of the House of Commons and I know there are a number, I would like to go over one more time what the legislation is about.

This is Bill C-64. It is an act respecting employment equity. The summary says that the purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups. The bill applies to the Public Service of Canada, to federally regulated employers, and to such portions of the public sector that employs 100 or more employees.

The bill talks about employer obligations in clauses 5 to 15; records and reports, a rather ominous sound for a lot of employers, in clauses 16 to 20; compliance audit in clauses 21 to 31; assessment of monetary penalties in clauses 31 to 37; and regulations in clauses 38 to 41. It then talks about changes to other acts that will be necessitated by this legislation should it be passed.

This is fairly significant legislation with real impact on a number of employers in our country.

It important to point out that the word equity which is the feature of this legislation simply means fairness. Government members have been playing the violin a great deal this morning about how wonderfully fair this is and how we should all be committed to fairness. I am sure that every single Canadian would applaud fairness in our country. In fact something that Canadians are noted for is a real commitment to fairness.

On behalf of the people of Canada whom we represent and whose affairs we are supposed to be managing we need to analyse whether this legislation delivers on the promise of fairness.

One of the real problems with this legislation is that what it does is unfairly and to a large degree increase the interference of government in the lives of citizens, particularly in the lives of citizens trying to keep businesses going, and trying to deliver jobs for Canadians.

First of all this legislation interferes with employment choices. It suggests that for every sector of employment there has to be proportional representation in four designated groups. It says to employers that they have to hire certain people from certain groups if they are to comply with these government legislated proposals. That is a clear interference in fairness for employers to be able to hire who they think will do the best job for them.

Second, it interferes in the principle of equality before the law. What it essentially says is that you do not have as equal a chance at a job as you would if you belonged to one of four designated groups.

I had a personal experience in my riding with a young man who was trying to be admitted into the RCMP. His applications were denied until in discussions with his family he discovered that he had some aboriginal background. Because of this suddenly he became more qualified to enter the RCMP. In fact today he is a member of the RCMP. It is very interesting how merit, qualifications and choices depend on certain genetic traits rather than merit. That certainly is not consistent with the principle of equality before the law.

Third, the legislation interferes with the administration of business in the country. This legislation and all employers that will be affected by it, which is a vastly expanded group, should look at this very carefully. I am sure they will be. They will now have to produce employment plans to satisfy certain criteria.

There will have to be regular reports to bureaucrats who will be very anxiously combing them to make sure they are correct and fulfil all the obligations. There will be compliance audits on a regular basis of these businesses to make sure employers are doing the correct thing.

There may be some appeals from bureaucratic decisions that come out of these reports and audits. There will be an ever-expanding group of regulations that will have to be complied with. It is no wonder that businesses are fatigued and why job creation is lagging behind the demand for it. With all this paperwork, regulations, proposals and requirements, how can a business get on with business? Some days you wonder.

Also this legislation sets out a great deal more bureaucracy. This is a time when governments do a great deal of their work with borrowed money, by mortgaging our future and here we have yet another bureaucracy set up in the furtherance of fairness.

Nowhere in the legislation are the cost benefits set out. Nowhere in the legislation are Canadians told how this is all going to be paid for. It is their money that is being spent. They have a right to ask, is the money I am being asked to cough up for this proposal justified by the public good that is going to be done. That is an issue that needs to be debated.

Clearly it is going to be an interference in productivity of business. This is another regulatory and governmental burden being added to all the other reports that have to be made by businesses to government. It is another government regulation, another interference into the lives and work of business people.

If we want to provide Canadians with jobs, jobs, jobs how are we going to do it when we have all of these social engineering mechanisms built into our economic sector? Does this make sense and does it really benefit Canadians?

The last thing I would like to talk about is the social consequences of this type of legislation. Unfortunately it says to Canadians what is important in the economic sector is not your qualifications, it is not your merit, it is not your competence, it is not your ability, it is not your drive, it is whether you are a victim. It is what group you belong to. It is whether you can show somehow that you are disadvantaged. Is this what we want people to be thinking about?

I understand that Tommy Douglas was not very tall. I have always felt really good about him because of that for some obvious reasons to people in the House. Sometimes Mr. Douglas was teased about the fact that he was not very tall. He had a good answer to this. He used to say: "Where I come from, we measure people from here up", indicating that it is what is in your mind, what is in your head, your intelligence, ability and competence that is important. It is not your height.

I would suggest to members that what is important to us is what we have in our hearts and our ability and not what colour our skin is, what our gender is or what disability we might have-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this bill before the House, an act respecting the Employment Equity Act.

I support the bill because the principles for which it stands are very sound. Moreover we anticipate that the provisions and the regulations that will emanate following the study of this bill will be sound in practice as well.

In essence, the Employment Equity Act is challenging us to put into practice the principles that describe the core values of Canada. The values about which we are speaking relate to the merit principle, to excellence, to human dignity, to respect, to the very core values that Canadians hold dear, to fairness and equality.

I heard earlier there was concern that we would only address the victims as though the victims have no talents, as though the victims have no competence, as though the victims have no excellence. The very essence of the Employment Equity Act is to hold very high the principle of excellence and merit above all else, irrespective of colour, irrespective of gender, irrespective of disability and irrespective of origin as a people.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Not in this bill.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes it is. It is about equity. It is about the equitable representation of those with talents in the workforce because for a generation Canada has failed. Therefore, the Liberal government of the past and the Liberal government of today are again trying to reinforce the fundamental principles that govern this bill.

In the process of addressing the legislation, I would like to reiterate that the bill can be looked on as a legislative centrepiece of our core Canadian social values, social equity among all of us.

I have mentioned the operative principles of the bill. What does it achieve, we may ask. I submit that we will achieve effective utilization of one's talents and one's skills. It will ensure businesses will provide better client service and therefore better and good business for the employers. By achieving this we will create harmony among all of us. There will be no feeling of being a second class citizen because of one's disability, colour, gender or aboriginal origin.

Who will question, and why should we question, if we can enhance the maximum productivity of all peoples with talents, that we should not utilize them and get them into the workforce, by applying the principle of fairness.

I submit that by adopting the principles of this bill we will be able to benefit not only the designated groups as defined in the bill, not only the visible minorities, not only the people with disabilities, not only women, not only aboriginal people. We will benefit everyone. Therefore, this is a bill for all Canadians to consider.

That is why the bill has seen to it that in addition to the private sector, the public sector will now be covered so that the government is setting a model. To ensure that we give teeth to what we believe, to ensure that we give enforcement to what we would like to happen, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be mandated to have this authority.

However, the work of the Human Rights Commission will not be in an adversarial fashion. It will be done within the spirit of co-operation and collaboration.

Therefore when we see our armed forces, the RCMP, our security intelligence service agency being covered under the act, to me this is a social blessing and the time has come. It will ensure that we achieve the purpose for which this act was first enacted, to ensure employers achieve a workforce that is equitable and representative of the four designated groups.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons to which this act will be referred by the House, I am delighted to serve on that committee. Our committee will ensure that there will be open and inclusive discussion and participation of all, that any matter referred to in the bill will be addressed, utilizing a wide consultation.

We would like to hear from all groups concerned. We would like to hear from the minister, from the department officials, from departments of government that are involved in the delivery of this program. We will invite the opposition to articulate its views to us on this issue, so that together we can shape a truly equitable Employment Equity Act.

In closing, I am delighted to support this bill because it reinforces a core Canadian value, the principle of social justice for all.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-64. It seems to me after having gone through the bill the thought police are out in force again. Here we have big government which is going to impose its will on employers, telling them not what they shall make but who they shall hire and in what numbers and so on, rather than allowing the free marketplace to decide who shall qualify for the job.

Looking at the bill concerning the purpose of the act, this is the double speak that the whole act tries to get around. It starts off by saying:

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-

Unrelated to ability, nobody shall be denied. Then it goes on after a while to say:

-employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.

It starts off with the great idea that merit is number one. This country did not get to where it is today, apart from being up to its eyes in debt, through mediocrity, quotas and minimum standards. It got here by trying harder, working harder, reaching for better things, hoping for the best for our children, rather than settling down for quotas and less than the best that we can offer.

When I intervened, one of previous Liberal speakers admitted that while this act says nothing about quotas, it is quotas they are talking about. He actually admitted right out front and was quite candid when he said quotas are what this bill is all about. Merit is being compromised.

When I go through the bill I again find this double speak where it tries to be all things to all people. Let us remember that it is talking about various groups, women, natives, visible minorities and the handicapped. Add all of these together. We have women making up 50 per cent of our population. Then add on the male handicapped, male visible minorities and male aboriginals. We are talking about a significant majority, not a minority, covered by this bill. A small minority are going to be asked to step aside even though they are the best qualified; step aside although they are motivated; step aside even if they have family responsibilities so that somebody else who is less qualified, less able, less motivated can take over and move ahead.

Going right back to the beginning where the bill says that no person shall be denied employment opportunities for the reasons unrelated to ability, that is exactly what we have.

We can take a look at the rather ridiculous items in the bill. Clause 5 states every employer shall implement employment equity by identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result in employer's employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law to ensure that we have this spectrum.

I think about sports. I think about the Olympics, this huge competition recognized around the world where we go out and find the best that we can find. There are no quotas there. It does not say that there has to be so many of one group or another group. We take pride in finding the best that we can find and we match these against others around the world. If we find that somebody else beats our Canadian competitors we say let us try harder so that next time we may win.

Surely that is the essence of any type of employment, any type of endeavour in this life where we say let me be the best that I can be.

If this bill had said let us take a look at the education that keeps back some people, be they an identifiable minority or not, surely we have an obligation to help these people to achieve the education and the motivational standards to allow them to compete rather than clamping down on those who do have the education, who do have the motivation, who do have the will and are prepared to work harder. Why are we putting a lid on them to elevate the others artificially? Why do we not give those who feel that they are disadvantaged a helping hand through education and developing that commitment and motivation so that when they enter the workforce they can compete on an equal basis?

Surely that is what it is about. We do not discriminate in sports. We go out and find the best we can find. It would be ludicrous if we thought that Canada was to apply some kind of quota system so that we would always lose. Do not worry, the the thought police will be happy because we ensured that all groups were represented at the competition.

This is big government wielding a big stick on employers. It is as if government thought that employers were incapable of doing it themselves. I think about a newsletter that I subscribe to out of the United States, not in Canada. We do not find these things in Canada. There are employment equity programs in the United States that have been forced on federally funded organizations, as this bill is trying to do here.

There is a small college in Michigan that said it will not comply. It may be thought these people are a bunch of bigots because they do not want to comply, they do not want to fill out the forms, they do not want to ask people which category they fit into, are they on the bottom rung so they have to help them, are they on the middle rung so they give them a little less helping up, are they on the top rung so they keep them down. They said they do not want to participate in that type of stuff. The government said if they are in receipt of federal funds they must, but they said no.

They were cut off federal funds. Some may think that serves them right. That college was the first to issue a degree to a woman in the United States in 1860 and the first college to issue a degree to a coloured person in the 1870s. One hundred years later when the government gets around to saying they have to in order to get employment equity or hiring equity or education equity going and have to fill out the forms, they say they have been doing that for a hundred years.

They do it on merit. They do not care if you are a woman or a man or if you are coloured or not coloured, but if you have the motivation and the desire to succeed, regardless of who you are or what you are they want to help you. They were doing that a hundred years ago voluntarily, long before the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States used the big stick of government to force it down people's throats.

It can be done to education. We do not stand here as the Reform Party saying we want to keep people down. We do not want to keep anybody down but we do not want to classify people and ask which group they fit into. If you are here in this country as a Canadian then that is all that is required and we say let us help these people forward through education and let us not impose penalties on the minority to help the majority.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today and to show my colleagues and all Canadians that we can trust the government to keep its promises.

The red book mentions a future when all citizens, irrespective of race, gender or physical or intellectual capacity, will enjoy an equal standard of living and quality of life.

The bill before the House today will help ensure this will happen. In fact, we will reinforce the Employment Equity Act so that it also covers the public service and federal commissions and agencies. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will be given the power to conduct audits and enforce this legislation. Employers who do business with the federal government will be required to comply with the principle of the Act. By reinforcing the Employment Equity Act, the government is acting to promote its concept of Canada according to which all citizens must have an equal opportunity to share in Canada's prosperity.

The existing Employment Equity Act has been instrumental in making Canadians aware of the need to identify and eliminate barriers to the employment of designated groups.

For all the many milestones that have been achieved since its inception, however, there are still millions of Canadians who have yet to enjoy its benefits. Women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities continue to face enormous barriers to employment which prevent them from achieving their full potential.

As my colleagues pointed out earlier, a substantial number of companies covered by the act fail to satisfy the legislation's mandate, 171 of 348 firms. Almost half of the companies reporting last year did not have women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples or visible minorities represented in their workforce.

Too much of Canadian history has been blemished through such inequality among Canadians. It is time to write a new chapter in the evolution of employment equity.

In rewriting the law we are renewing our faith in the fundamental values that shape Canadian society, fairness, decency and justice for all. By renewing the legislation we will clarify employer obligations and strengthen employee opportunities. We are determined to strike a better balance that works to the advantage of all Canadians.

For the first time in Canada, public and private sector employers will be on an equal footing. The Public Service will be subject to the same rules as the private sector. All employers will be required to reflect the diversity of Canada's population in their labour force. We will extend the scope of the legislation to include the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The legislation will also apply to employers who do business with the federal government, which means that from now on they will have to comply with the principle of the Employment Equity Act. This legislation will also give new responsibilities to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission will have the authority to conduct audits in the workplace in order to force employers to comply with the Act.

The commission will also be empowered to take corrective action as needed. In cases of non compliance, the commission may refer the case to an employment equity review tribunal, whose decisions could be mandatory.

To balance the commission's regulatory authority, employers who wish to challenge its decisions will have a chance to plead their case before the tribunal.

The legislation clearly stipulates that tribunal rulings will not cause undue hardship for employers or require them to hire or promote unqualified individuals.

The amendments are also purposely designated not to increase the paper burden to employers. They are meant to act as an impetus, not an impediment to economic growth and job creation.

Enlightened Canadian employers are rapidly discovering for themselves that employment equity is a bonus in the workplace. Diversity is proving to be a competitive advantage in an increasingly complex global economy. Given demographic trends, employers have every reason to want to capitalize on the wealth of untapped talent in the designated groups.

By the year 2000, when Canada will experience a skill shortage caused by an aging population, two-thirds of newcomers to the workforce will be women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. Canadian employers cannot afford to overlook this vast labour pool any longer.

All Canadians will benefit as a result of this legislation, because its purpose is to ensure that all Canadians will have equal access to employment opportunities and advancement.

The bill before the House today states that workers are to be hired and promoted on the basis of ability. It provides that ability and merit must be taken into account to ensure employment equity, which can only improve the quality of our labour force.

In fact, employment equity is closely linked to social security reform. Social and economic progress cannot be dissociated from job creation and the integration of disadvantaged persons in the community.

The changes proposed in this bill are necessary, reasonable and fair.

We are convinced that an improved Employment Equity Act will give employers an opportunity to create more efficient and more effective workplaces.

In fact, these improvements will promote tolerance and respect for diversity and encourage a better appreciation of the rich diversity of our communities.

I commend the minister for his decision to send this piece of legislation to committee. I wish to cite some of my own experiences with the public service in Quebec where some legislation has been adopted.

L'Office des ressources humaines was faced with a target of 12 per cent hiring for members of the cultural communities visible minorities. The public service was unable to attain this level. We might ask why it was unable to attain this level, even though it was a promise made by the former Liberal government of that province.

The reason, after years of studies and years of reports, was that there was systemic discrimination. In other words, visible minorities, members of cultural communities, women and the handicapped were barred by a system that did not have the types of measures in it that would allow access to promotions or even to jobs within that system.

Many members opposite said that the merit principle has been forgotten and used words like reverse discrimination. My experience has led me to believe the proposals we are presenting will require that we succeed in removing the deep rooted systemic biases that exist in any system, especially in the public service.

We also need to assure that the Human Rights Commission will have the resources and the authority to ensure compliance with the legislation presented to the House.

Finally, with respect to downsizing, cuts will be made in many areas. I hope the groups we are discussing today will not be unduly hardshipped by the downsizing that is taking place at the moment, because a lot of them were newly arrived to the present system and are on contracts.

Our public service must reflect the reality of Canada. It must be representative of all the components of our society. We are not talking about merit here. Are hon. members on the other side of the House saying there are no qualified individuals in any of these four groups? Are there no women, no visible minorities, no handicapped people, no native people who are qualified for these positions? I doubt that reflects the reality. In fact there are many of them. However there is enough systemic discrimination in the system, enough biases in the system not to allow these qualified individuals to have access to our public service.

I would like the hon. members to take these facts into consideration.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as a Reform member on the standing committee on human rights to address the government's proposed legislation to extend employment equity.

Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity as tabled by the human resources minister yesterday, reflects the government's disregard for proper process in its presentation and the government's ongoing folly of spending non-existent public money to undermine the job creation abilities of Canadians and to create further division and social pressure among competing groups of otherwise talented and proud Canadians. I am delighted to take the opportunity to expand on these tenets.

Today much discussion has been shared in the House on the pros and cons of such a program. The rhetoric and mixed messages become confusing. In response I take a moment to consider how employment equity measures up to three basic and clear philosophies I believe the vast majority of Canadians would welcome and support.

According at least to the red book, Liberals too would agree, first, that deficit reduction is a major priority. They have agreed that billions of dollars in government spending must be cut to accomplish it. Second, Canada must have a credible place in the global economy. To quote from the red book:

The federal government can and should support and facilitate the national effort to prepare Canadians to compete in the world.

Third is the equality of opportunity, and again I quote:

Governments should support a framework of fundamental fairness and decency within which Canadians are able to pursue their individual goals.

Let us hold up the existing proposals of the bill against such a benchmark. It is not in viewing things in isolation but against a true measure that we can separate pretence from fact.

Even the present Liberal government is finally recognizing the debt and deficit are a major threat to Canada's present situation and future potential. Current government policy has finally recognized the connection between fiscal recklessness and unemployment, between high indebtedness and the loss of economic and fiscal sovereignty.

In a recent release from the Department of Finance entitled "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate", the government now seems to realize that the deficit problem cannot be addressed without a clear priorization of federal spending. Budgetary actions "should weigh toward reductions in expenditures". Choices must be made between high and low priority items.

Although as Reformers we believe their 3 per cent target to be totally inadequate, it has become apparent in public debate that even for that goal billions must be cut, which will demand cuts to some untouchable programs.

The first question I ask is: Should the added expense of broadening employment equity be a top priority in the mind of a budget balancing government? We must keep in mind that employment equity already exists as a policy across all public service within the Public Service Act.

Bill C-64 will mandate that approach in law though the Treasury Board now refuses to try to estimate the cost of the existing policy.

Does this imply that such a policy has been immune from the departmental review process demanded by the government in recent months? Does this imply that the policy of employment equity is so philosophically important it takes priority over federal downsizing or even some social programs? Is this so necessary as to be deemed untouchable in government operations even before it comes before Canadians for discussion? If so, who did the government listen to in order to come to that conclusion.

A Gallup poll conducted last December showed that the majority of Canadians accept the concept of equality in the workplace. However 81 per cent of Canadians oppose numerical hiring goals and 90 per cent oppose exclusionary job competition. The government is also ignoring the fact that 74 per cent of those surveyed are definitely opposed to government equity programs.

In response to the government's mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs, how will this priority program affect Canada's long term viability in the important world markets? The purpose of the act is the explicit encouragement of employers to discriminate in favour of targeted groups over all other employees, largely white able-bodied males.

No matter how we look at it, the establishment of numerical goals as outlined in the legislation means quotas. The rejection of merit as the only distinguishing characteristic dictates that the best candidate, as opposed simply to the qualifying candidate, will not necessarily be the one chosen for any particular position.

By treating some more equal than others the government's mandated policy dictates that we end up with a workforce less expert than otherwise may be possible. Canada increasingly exists within the demands of an ever expanding and increasingly competitive world market. Every means possible from sound fiscal management to excellence in every sector of the economy will be necessary for us to hold our own in the challenge of that competitive environment.

Finally I want to spend some time on the notion of equality. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims Canadians are equal before and under the law. True justice lies in a process, not in the outcome.

Any competition between two individuals, whether it be a race or a job competition, can only be deemed fair in the equal treatment during the process. The outcome is never predictable. The test of the race should never be in comparing the anticipated with the actual results.

The true test of equality of opportunity is the very randomness of the outcome. Fairness dictates only that the best man or woman wins. This legislation is not just. It establishes numerical goals that must be met, which affects the outcome in favour of those covered under the goals.

As a member of a designated group I take offence at the implications of the government's numerical goals or quotas. There is a suggestion by their very existence that somehow the system lacks confidence in the ability of women in general to really compete on a level playing field.

The same Gallup poll I referred to found that 75 per cent of women agreed with the statement that governments should not actively hire more women or minority groups. As a group, women are not at a disadvantage. The 1994 annual report indicates women are actually doing better outside the act than they are under the employment equity program.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will have the floor after question period. However, as it is two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.