Debates of Oct. 3rd, 1995

Employment Equity Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of Bill C-64 which deals with the employment equity issue.

I would like to say at the outset that the impassioned speech by the deputy whip illustrates many of the concerns we in this party have. We want to ensure that all people in this country have equal opportunity to become the best they can become for themselves and also their families.

We are particularly concerned in the Reform Party about those individuals who are on the lower socioeconomic strata within our society, to identify why they are there and to give those people the tools and the opportunities that will enable them to stand on their own two feet and become economically self-sustaining so that they and their families can enjoy happier, more fruitful and productive lives.

Employment equity does not do this. It is in fact highly discriminatory. It says to a group of people who are identified by the government that they cannot compete because of the colour of their skin, because of their gender, because of their religious background or wherever they came from. That is what it says. It is a government designation. It is also insulting.

As a person who is made up of many different ethnic groups, and I am speaking for other people who are also from different ethnic groups, it is insulting to be told you are going to be hired on the basis of the colour of your skin. What does it say to that person? It says you cannot compete on the basis of merit, on the basis of your skills, on the basis of your qualities; therefore we in the government are going to do it for you. That, I submit to anybody, regardless of where they come from, is an insult.

Employment equity is social engineering at its worst. It is the government meddling in areas it ought not to meddle in. As I said before, it is insulting to all minority groups.

We know that governments cannot legislate on how people think. They must legislate against the expression of people's prejudices. We cannot legislate against what people think. We cannot legislate to the prejudices they hold within their heart. However, governments must legislate against the expression of those prejudices. That is the role of government: to ensure that those prejudices are not in the realm of employment, are not in the realm of living in a peaceful society within the beautiful country we have.

The role of government, instead of employment equity which is really employment inequity, is in effect providing a level playing field for all people. The deputy whip just mentioned that the people in the lower socioeconomic groups are finding it extraordinarily difficult to get on their own two feet. That is absolutely true. So how do we address the problem? We ensure that prejudices are not being expressed in the workforce. We also ensure that those individuals have the opportunities to become the best they can become. Give them the skills training or provide them with the opportunities for skills training. Provide them with the opportunities for education. Provide them with the abilities to get a job. Provide them and everybody else with a strong economy.

We must also as a government and as a country enforce anti-discriminatory laws. Those must be enforced strongly, and where discrimination occurs it must be quashed. That is the role of government.

People do not realize that employment equity is highly destructive to the soul of a country. Nobody takes into consideration those people who are being jumped over for a promotion because of the colour of their skin. You cannot say to somebody from a minority group that they are going to get a job over somebody else who is a Caucasian, for example. Nobody takes into consideration what that does to the Caucasian person. It is discriminatory to that person or whoever might be in their seat.

The only objective measure in getting a job is merit and merit alone. Anything else is discrimination. The social engineering this government wants to do is discriminatory in the highest extent. When I spoke about what it does to Canadian society, the government may not be aware of how divisive this policy is. I have received many letters in my riding. I do not know who they are from, but many individuals have said God bless you for saying that employment equity is divisive.

What employment equity is doing is saying to people who are being jumped over for jobs and promotions that they are not getting them because of characteristics that have absolutely nothing to do with merit. The characteristics that governments would apply to

employment equity to ensure that subgroupings of people will get jobs have nothing to do with merit. Colour, gender, religious affiliation have nothing to do with merit and everything to do with discrimination. It is by its very nature discriminatory.

I hope we will not follow through with this. I hope the government supports these motions and helps to develop more sense and sensibility over an issue that is very sensitive.

I would reiterate that we in this party are very sensitive to the individuals who are the most dispossessed in our society. We want to create a stronger economy so that they can fulfil their potential. We want to ensure that people will get the proper education. We want to ensure that they get the skills necessary to stand on their own feet. We want to ensure that they and their children are going to live in a safe environment.

I hope the government will join with us in ultimately putting aside and eliminating employment equity, which says to people and to companies that we need a certain number of quotas of these groupings of individuals because the law says it must be so, rather than advancing those people on the basis of merit. It also is highly destructive to an economy. If you advance people on the basis of characteristics other than merit, you actually weaken the economy ultimately.

Employment equity is prejudicial. It is discriminatory. I hope this government throws it away, as has been done in other parts of the world, such as in California and in Ontario.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to debate Motions 15, 16 and 17 put forth by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest with respect to Bill C-64.

When we consider the number of amendments the members of the Reform Party have presented to the House on this bill, it is clear that their attempt is to weaken the effectiveness of the Employment Equity Act.

Canadians often wonder whether there are differences between political ideologies. I would encourage them to listen to this debate because they will see that there are enormous differences. My colleague has just made the claim that this program is divisive. It can be divisive, yes, particularly when it is claimed that this was its intended purpose, when the reasons such a program was created are ignored.

It is regrettable that the employment equity legislation is not looked upon by my colleagues from the Reform Party as it is intended to be. They do not see that it will make this nation a fairer one in the way in which we treat Canadians. The unfairness and the divisiveness occurs when people suggest that is what it does. This legislation is something we should be proud of, not something we should be running away from.

With regard to Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, the hon. member is calling upon the government to eliminate provisions that are integral to administering the act's monetary penalty system. To do so would automatically eliminate the benefits inherent in such a system. It would be like telling the referees at a hockey game that they can call penalties but they cannot put anyone in the penalty box. Without these provisions it would be impossible to ensure that those private sector employees subject to the act fulfill their obligations with regard to reporting requirements. It should be noted that the monetary penalty system only applies in cases of non-compliance with the reporting requirements in the act.

Motion No. 15 calls for the deletion of clause 38. Clause 38 gives employers the option of either paying the assessed penalty or asking for an independent third party review, namely by an employment equity tribunal. Clause 38 provides employers with access to an open and fair appeal.

Motion No. 16 calls for the deletion of clause 39. This clause combines the appeal and review mechanisms. An employer can apply for the tribunal to review the assessed penalty or the commission can take further action if an employer has neither paid the assessment on time nor asked for a review.

Motion No. 17 calls for the deletion of clause 40. This clause is necessary to enable the commission to take a negligent employer to federal court to collect an unpaid assessment. If we remove the ability to take this action, it will mean removing the possibility of applying a just penalty to employers who are in contravention.

I would like to stress once again that the system of monetary penalties applies only in cases of non-compliance with the reporting requirements. Only then. To date the only mechanism available to us for ensuring compliance with the reporting requirement has been recourse to criminal proceedings, an unwieldy process.

This system costs less and is less unwieldy and easier on everyone concerned. For the reporting requirement to make any sense the statute must include an enforcement mechanism. It is totally illogical to set out monetary penalties without any means of implementing those penalties.

If the government were to adopt the proposed amendments under those circumstances, the reporting requirement would be unenforceable. This is why I cannot support the hon. member's motions.

I would ask my colleagues in the Reform Party to look at the government's intentions and motivation not just with open minds but with open eyes as well. The intent is not to divide but to ensure representation for the under-represented, to ensure that they are taken into account. We are all aware that in the present system those who are not as strong as others are not always treated in a fair and equitable manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to debate the motions before us.

By way of introduction I call on the attention particularly of the Reform Party, which participated in the committee on human rights and the status of disabled persons, the committee I had the privilege to chair and the committee that looked into this issue. The members of the Reform Party on that committee have to admit as a matter of truth that the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before our committee were truly in support of the Employment Equity Act.

In other words, we strengthened what exists to include a wider coverage of the public sector and we instituted an enforcement mechanism.

We have called our report "Employment Equity: A Commitment to Merit" to give a very clear message. I submit the Reform Party has to be reminded that the cross-section of witnesses regardless of their position on legislated employment equity all agreed on at least four points, all of which we agree with. The skills and abilities to perform a job are essential. Fairness in employment practices is a necessity. Elimination of employment barriers helps ensure applicants can compete on an equal footing. In principle employment equity and therefore a realization of diversity is crucial.

However, we believe Canada, a country committed to social justice, must have these sentiments in policy. What better way to show that than to put these sentiments, that commitment, into a piece of law? That is the ultimate sense of a commitment to fairness and equality. We have succeeded in having a committee which included the participation of members of the Reform Party.

If I honestly believed the motions we are now debating would clearly improve and strengthen this act I would support them but I think we can see these are only attempts to emasculate this piece of legislation. I feel they are trying to mislead Canadians. No one is being discriminated against in this employment equity law. We would only ensure that discrimination does not happen. In other words, we have the force of law. If only employers would comply with the principle of equity, and the vast majority do, then there would be nothing to fear.

Here we have enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms equality for all. However, even the charter in a subsection of section 15 ensures we must have the ability as the Government of Canada to adopt policies and programs and pass legislation that give teeth to the principle of equality for these disadvantaged groups: women, people with disabilities, people of First Nations and people designated as visible minorities.

I am really disheartened the members opposite could not see that we must have a centrepiece for our social equity, this piece of legislation on employment equity. This is really looked on as a hallmark by the people of the world, making Canada a unique nation where we exalt the importance of excellence in human endeavour while at the same time being committed to disallowing a retreat from that. This is not about reverse discrimination. This is not about redressing the injustices of the past. This is ensuring once and for all the injustices of the past do not recur.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motions put forward by the Reform Party on Bill C-64. This bill concerns me very much. The government certainly has Canadians' best interests at heart in this bill. It is attempting to redress problems in the workplace.

However, I find myself giving some qualified support to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and Motions Nos. 15 to 17. These motions would eliminate clauses 18, 19 and 20 from the bill which are basically targeted toward private sector employers.

I have great respect for colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken on this subject because it is a subject we all feel very deeply about. I have serious reservations about implementing an employment equity program first for government employees and then extending it by whatever means to private sector employees.

The problems with clauses 18, 19 and 20 are they require very elaborate reporting from private sector employers about their equity programs and as addressed in Motions Nos. 15 to 17, provide penalties if they do not comply.

Private sector employers are required to give salary ranges of their employees who are in the designated group, the degree of representation of these designated persons, and it goes on about various subdivisions in order to give the government an opportunity to establish whether private sector employers are fulfilling the intentions of the act in their employment practices.

While the act unequivocally says decision by merit will be the underlying principle, unfortunately the way it is phrased it gives discretion to bureaucrats to determine whether an employer is fulfilling the obligations as described in clauses 18, 19 and 20. This sets us on a dangerous course for our social liberties as a country.

However well intended we are, this does create the opportunity for bureaucracies to determine what private employers are doing.

I hate to use the extreme case, but we would have a situation akin to big brother. Any bureaucrat may interpret the legislation. No matter how well phrased, there is an opportunity for interpretation. Unfortunately there could be a degree of political correctness, although I hate to use that term as well. There could be a mindset in the bureaucracy of a less generous interpretation of how private sector employers are treating visible minorities, women, the disabled and other designated groups.

This becomes very crucial when penalty is added. This is covered by Motions Nos. 15 to 17. Clause 36 of the act provides for a penalty of up to $10,000 for a first violation and $50,000 for a repeated or for continued violations. These violations involve failure to report or failure to fully meet the criteria in other legislation.

I have great difficulty with that because when we apply penalties the misdemeanour should be very clear. It should never be open to interpretation. It is my fear that as the bill is written it does put an unfortunate and undue obligation on private sector employers.

I recently came from the private sector and I can assure members that while the public sector may be behind in its treatment and hiring of designated groups, most private sector employers I know hire on merit and certainly try to represent all groups that come forward, and not in a discriminatory fashion.

It is very dangerous to think we can legislate away discrimination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find myself increasingly frustrated by the many roadblocks the Reform Party is attempting to erect to circumvent this important piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is good for Canada and for all Canadians. As parliamentarians we have an opportunity to do the right thing and this legislation will do that.

For all who believe in the principles of democracy and the noble ideals of this institution, the Employment Equity Act is a welcome reminder of the values we hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation that Canadians are just and honourable people who passionately believe in fairness and dignity for all.

To those of us who are members of the designated groups, employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is not about inequity. It is not about getting more than your fair share. It is about equity. It is the freedom to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed rights to participate in the political process and to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

My expertise on this matter lies in my life and professional work experience and growing up in a northern aboriginal community where the chances were far greater that I would walk the halls of a penitentiary than the corridors of Parliament. That is why the Reform Party's damaging amendments disturb me so deeply. They would seriously weaken the intent and impact of the legislation.

Of all the ill conceived amendments proposed by my hon. colleague, none concerns me more than Motion No. 6. If adopted this amendment would diminish Bill C-64 by deleting the aboriginal employers exemption in clause 7. It would remove the provision that allows an employer engaged primarily in promoting and serving the interests of aboriginal peoples to give preference in employment to aboriginal peoples unless that preference constitutes a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In practical terms this means the act would not allow municipal bands on Indian reserves to give preference to the hiring of aboriginal peoples, perhaps the most disadvantaged of the groups the legislation is attempting to assist.

It is a well known fact that many non-aboriginal peoples work in and around large populated areas of aboriginal people. That has been historically so and still is in some cases. It should be the intent of all parliamentarians to change that and make accessible employment opportunities and training in other labour market related areas available for aboriginal peoples. There is nothing wrong with that.

Indian band councils that employ more than 100 workers are subject to the Employment Equity Act. I want to be clear that this provision does not relieve aboriginal employers of the obligation to hire aboriginal women and/or persons with disabilities.

I remind the House that aboriginal peoples of Canada have a unique constitutional status affirmed in section 35. These agreements are done through the British parliamentary system as we have it here. These agreements are recognized nationally and internationally. This status demands special consideration for measures aimed at enhancing their cultural, economic and political autonomy. It rejects no one.

Historically, as I have stated, many aboriginal communities and populations have been served by non-aboriginal people, and well in many cases. There have been problems but that is not the issue. The issue is fairness.

Perhaps most important, this motion goes against the very grain of the Liberal commitment to self-government. We are determined to give greater autonomy to aboriginal communities and to put the running of aboriginal affairs in aboriginal peoples' hands. Why not? We have struggled with it as governments for 125 years. There

are many problems. The aboriginal people should have the opportunity to serve themselves and to serve themselves well. They should at least have the opportunity to make their own decisions.

Clause 7 of Bill C-64 supports the aspirations of aboriginal communities for economic self-sufficiency and self-determination. It simply confirms that aboriginal organizations may hire only aboriginals, provided such a hiring is justified under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I must confess that I am very surprised that the Reform Party would take the position it has on Motion No. 6. One can only assume it is based on a profound lack of awareness of the plight of aboriginal peoples in the country. It is no secret that members on the opposite side of the Chamber are not in favour of employment equity. We know that. However, from my reading of their minority report, it appears that they still believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission has an important role to play.

There is a certain irony in the Reform's proposition. First is the fact that the commission's chair, Max Yalden, expressed his support for clause 7 when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. In response to a specific question about the exemption he said:

I think that aboriginal groups are a particularly disadvantaged group, a special group. The idea that native groups would, in their very special and particular situation, have a preferential hiring policy is not unreasonable.

There is another technical reason why clause 7 cannot be removed from the act. It is to ensure consistency with the Canadian Human Rights Act. I can only conclude, as did the commissioners in the Canadian Human Rights Commission annual report last year, that occasionally the tone of the opposition to employment equity seems more than a little shrill.

Thus far I have outlined the logical and legal arguments to reject the Reform Party's proposal. Far more potent are the facts of everyday life for the aboriginal peoples of the country. Discrimination is not an abstract, philosophical concept for disadvantaged Canadians. Abuse of power by a privileged few is the daily reality for members of the designated groups, particularly if they are aboriginal.

I challenge the hon. member to test the merits of his motion on members of aboriginal communities, especially those who are unemployed. Unemployment is very high. On some reserves where there are few employment opportunities the unemployment rate can rise as high as 95 per cent.

Tragically, aboriginal peoples account for the most disturbing rate of suicide. It is five times the national average. Let us think of the communities of Pangnirtung, the Whitedog reserve and Shamattawa, some communities in which we have seen many young people commit suicide. Not only do my people have the highest rates of suicide in the country but they are the highest in the world.

At the other end of the scale aboriginal people have the lowest incomes in Canada. Almost one-half of all aboriginal adults have incomes of less than $10,000. Not coincidentally they face far more crowded housing conditions. Twenty-nine per cent of non-reserve aboriginals live in housing with more than one person per room, compared with just 2 per cent of the general population. The rate is 31 per cent for Inuit people.

There is a corresponding high welfare dependency rate as well. It is 43 per cent on reserves, or almost five times the national population, and over 50 per cent among the off reserve population.

I am sure the Reform Party knows we share its view that it is better for people to be working. It is better for aboriginal people to become independent and self-sustaining than to be on welfare. It is better that we make these opportunities available than to slam doors in their faces so that progress cannot be made where help is needed.

Young aboriginal people are the most likely to drop out of school, to become teenage parents and to abuse substances such as alcohol, drugs and even solvents. With only 3 per cent of aboriginal teens completing high school, they have the highest illiteracy rates and lowest incomes in the country. Not surprisingly, more graduate from juvenile courts than from colleges or universities.

I would never deny the successes. We have made some progress. I am willing to stand here and admit there has been progress. However it is not enough, not at this point.

We have many graduates coming out of universities and colleges. For those who manage to rise above the daunting disadvantages, the thousands of aboriginal men and women who acquire university degrees and professional skills each year, employment opportunities still do not match their availability. The unemployment rate of aboriginal peoples with university degrees is nearly double that of white males with university educations.

That is a fact. That is the truth. It is undeniable. Those highly skilled and highly trained individuals are desperately needed in their communities. That is why the act exempts aboriginal organizations from provisions which might prohibit them from hiring these invaluable employees.

In conclusion, it is a lamentable commentary on Canadian society that the odds are stacked against far too many aboriginal people. With Bill C-64 we can start to turn the statistics around. Centuries of inappropriate and damaging policies developed and administered predominantly by non-aboriginals have taught us that

it is time to let the Indian, Inuit and Metis people take control of their own destiny.

That is why we need clause 7 in Bill C-64. The focus of federal policies is on seizing opportunities. The agents of change are individuals, because we are convinced that with the right support individuals can help themselves. That philosophy is at the heart of the aboriginal employers' exemption clause. A majority of Canadians recognize-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. It is with the greatest of reluctance that I interrupt the minister, but at this stage of debate the allocation is for 10 minutes. I would seek the guidance of the House.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have the consent of the House for the minister to wrap up her remarks on this matter in a couple of minutes?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It might be helpful if the minister could give the Chair some indication of how much longer she would need to conclude her remarks. If it is less than a minute, is there unanimous consent for the minister to conclude her remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all members of the House for allowing me to complete my remarks.

A majority of Canadians recognize the terrible plight of aboriginal peoples and realize that for constitutional, social and moral reasons special efforts are necessary to reverse their misfortune.

I am proud that I count myself among them. I urge all like minded members of the House to defeat the draconian motion to ensure that we remain the majority and do the right thing by leaving the doors of opportunity open for aboriginal peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan proposed, in relation to Private Members' Business today, that private members' hour not be proceeded with, with the intention of having his motion that was to be debated this afternoon dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

I understand there is some misunderstanding concerning what he meant this morning. I think Your Honour would find that it was clear to all, except perhaps the Table and the Chair, the intention as discussed this morning was that the item would drop to the bottom of the order of precedence and we would proceed with private members' hour tomorrow in the usual way.

I simply rise to clarify that point and if consent of the House is required, to seek it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his clarification. We all understood that the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan with regard to the Private Members' Business listed for later this day was that it be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence. I would seek the agreement of the House. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

And so ordered.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment of my colleague from Edmonton Southwest to delete application of the bill in the private sector and to speak not only in favour of the amendment but against the employment equity notion and concept completely.

One of the things that frustrated me this morning in listening to the debate was that very few government members are looking at the issues and countering the points of view presented against employment equity. Rather they have chosen to be meanspirited. They have chosen to Reform bash and make this a party issue. I take exception to that. I take exception to the member for York North who rose in his place earlier today and called the Reform Party meanspirited.

I come from the private sector. I have run businesses for 25 years. I have hired and fired many people, male and female, and have had people work for me of various colours and of various ethnic backgrounds. I think I am a tough taskmaster but I am not meanspirited. I am an employer with a heart and with compassion. I believe in paying people a good day's wage for a good day's work.

I am against the government-union philosophy that once people get a job in government they cannot be let go and have a right to work. That is not correct. It is not available in the private sector. Also it is unacceptable in the private sector to have government intrude into our lives with more and more regulations.

Employment equity does that very thing. It tries to get into the lives of corporations and tries to dictate to them whom they have to hire and why they have to hire them. It is doing nothing more than social and economic engineering which this party stands against.

It is not meanspirited to be against employment equity. It is not meanspirited to point out to the member for York North that we believe the best person available for the job should be hired for the job. If those best people are 10 black people, then they should be hired. If it is 10 white people, then they should be hired. If it is 10 native Indians, then they should be hired.

If the government tells the employer that he has to hire based on a quota because the demographics of the census it has taken says

that Canada is made up of certain colours and certain percentages of people that his business has to hire on that basis, then it is basically forcing corporations in a lot of cases to hire people who are not as qualified.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Nonsense.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I hear the member opposite say: "Nonsense". My argument is that whether people are male, female, black, white, yellow, red or green as the member for Edmonton Southwest said, it does not matter. They should apply for the job. If they have the training and the qualifications they will get hired.

The employer should be free to hire. Is that not freedom? Is that not freedom of choice? Is that not in the charter of rights? What rights do employers have?

We are trying to make a better system for the country. We are trying to encourage people. It is equal opportunity that is important. It is on equal opportunity that certain members of the government are missing the point. They fail to see that we are looking for introducing and encouraging businesses to hire the best person for the job but to give the black, the white, the Indian, the yellow or whatever race, equal opportunity to be interviewed for the job. That is the kind of legislation from which we need to protect people. Those are the kinds of regulations that perhaps we could introduce into our system to make sure that everybody has an equal opportunity. If they do not, then they are discriminated against and then we should do something about it.

Employers cannot be legislated to hire certain types of people because of quotas. That is not meanspirited. That is right spirited. That is trying to put the heart and the mind in the right place to do the right thing for the right people, both employers and employees.

The government is interfering once again in corporate Canada by bringing in regulations and red tape it has no business doing. Government is better off doing other things, such as balancing the budget and getting us out of debt. That is the problem. Government wants to add to it at 3 per cent of GDP per year. The deficit is not the problem, the debt is. Legislation such as this is going to make it more difficult and more inefficient for corporations to operate and function.

In my years as an employer in the private sector, I have interviewed and hired a lot of people who are disadvantaged. I have hired people who were mentally handicapped. They did a good job in delivering internal documentation. Our encouraging them, working with them and seeing them grow in spirit, heart and mind was an encouragement and a boost for all of us. I did not need legislation to do that. Nobody ordered me to hire this gentleman.

In a company I still own, there is currently an individual who is physically handicapped. He is short and one leg is shorter than the other. He is just one heck of a good draftsman. He is a great spirit around the office and fun to have. I have hired males, females, francophones. I have hired a Czechoslovakian who can barely speak English. Nobody ordered me to do this.

I am saying this as a representative of the private sector, which I believe I am. I am about the average of the private sector. Certainly there are some people in the private sector who would take advantage of the rules but I would say the majority of people, which I represent, do not need legislation like this to tell them whom to hire and why to hire them. They are going to look for competent people, people who are going to fit into the mould of their corporations and their companies.

To have this arbitrary law that says that you must now, Mr. Silye, interview people of this nature and this type because of the census is wrong. It says this is the only classification you can look for, when perhaps the very types of people I am being ordered to hire do not have the training or the background to do that particular job.

Let us stick to the issues. Let us not bash the Liberal Party, the Reform Party. Let us talk about the merits and the demerits, the pluses and the minuses of employment equity. That is a debate. That is what the people are here to hear. That is what Canadians want to know about. Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?

I stand today in my place to say I think it is a bad thing. If other hon. members feel it is a good thing, let them say why they think it is good. Let me say why I think it is bad. Let us not get into Reform bashing and the meanspirited kind of crap that is going on which leads to unparliamentary language. Let us just stick to the issue.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the government's argument and that of the individuals who represent employment equity is that in the name of introducing equity and equality they are, and I hope they can see this, introducing a form of inequality, a form of inequity that discriminates reversely against the very discrimination they claim they are trying to avoid.

It is the same with the Income Tax Act which is convoluted, complicated and confusing. In the name of clarification, in the name of fairness, in the name of equity the government has introduced 1,000 plus pages of rulings and amendments to clarify the Income Tax Act. By adding another 1,000 pages is that clarifying it or is that confusing it even more? It is making it worse and worse and worse. It is the same kind of thing that is going on with this bill. By preaching and supporting employment equity the Liberals are introducing more legislation, more rules that make it more confusing, more convoluted, more complicated. It is a detriment to business. It is a detriment to the hard working citizens

of the country who want to move forward and get on with the job of stimulating the economy. At every turn another government law comes in with more red tape, more regulations, more rules to follow, more auditors. Now we are going to have people auditors.

It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is checking our books every frigging month. It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is interpreting the rules for the government because we need money.

Let me remind all those people at Revenue Canada it is not the deficit that is the problem. Let me remind the Government of Canada it is not the deficit that is the problem. The debt is the problem and the government is adding to it. High taxes are the problem and the government is adding to that. It is bad regulations, lousy rules like this, terrible laws like this which are the problem. The government is not listening. It is continually adding to the problem.

I understand it is in the hearts of Liberals. I know they believe what they are saying comes from the heart and they feel it is helping Canadians. I believe when they say they are trying to eliminate discrimination that they are honest and sincere about it. But I am saying that in so doing they are not really eliminating discrimination, they are introducing a new form of discrimination. That is what is wrong. That is what I ask the government to reconsider.

This amendment deals with the private sector. I hope members opposite will agree it has been a good employer, has promoted the economy. Eighty-five per cent of revenue generated in tax dollars comes from the private sector. At least leave it alone.

If the government really believes in the legislation, then just apply it to the government sector. It can do what it wants with the bureaucracy. That is their baby. Do it, try it and see the inequities that will be introduced. But please support the amendment because it leaves one sector of the economy that can function viably well and will not in any way deter or detract from the intent of the bill. I know how the private sector thinks, acts and deals. It usually hires the best person regardless of race, colour, creed or whatever.

If the government is intent on introducing employment equity, go ahead and do it in the public sector. Go ahead and do it with the bureaucrats and watch the uprising that will occur. I know a lot of people in the bureaucracy are not happy with the form of affirmative action that is taking place right now.

I am asking the government to reconsider its opposition to the amendment and do something constructive. It can have it both ways. By accepting this amendment it can go ahead with the bill, if it is just applied to the public sector and leave the private sector alone. Then we will see which will end up being right.

I believe the bill is an intrusion into our lives. It is an intrusion which the government does not need to do. It is an intrusion it would be better off to avoid and leave alone. I believe that employers can be trusted. I know that for the most part private sector employers, the vast majority, can be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have a great interest in hockey. Does it discriminate against players from all over the world? No. It sought to change the rules, to bring in the best hockey players in the world. We have a National Hockey League that has every nationality playing on it. Was there employment equity introduced in that profession? No. We do not need employment equity. I stand against employment equity. I stand for this amendment and for equal opportunity for all.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer I spent my time in my riding of Windsor-St. Clair which is the centre of my universe.

I returned to this session of Parliament with a renewed commitment to employment equity. I am convinced more than ever that Bill C-64 is the right thing for Canada right now. I am concerned though, after meeting with my constituents over the summer recess, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about both the intent and the implications of our improved employment equity legislation.

Distortions have resulted from a misinterpretation and frankly, a misrepresentation of the facts by a few. I have discovered that once these misconceptions are straightened out and the legislation fully understood, it gains widespread support. It seems to be essential that these misconceptions be corrected on the floor of the House.

I specifically want to address several of the arguments raised in the Reform Party's minority report. I am particularly concerned about the attitude that report reflects, the "I'm all right, I have got mine, Jack" attitude. I have mine so everyone else can go to hell. That is the tone of the Reform Party's minority report. The idea in it is that I got ahead and so everyone else should just try to get there on their own. I do not owe it to anybody to help them or to assist them or to do anything.

It is disingenuous for a woman to suggest that because she is successful, got there on her own, she owes nothing to her sisters who came before her. It is disingenuous for any of us to suggest that anyone can get to this job, can become an accountant, can become a banker or can become a painter. It is disingenuous, false and deludes the Canadian public.

The idea that as Canadians we should not acknowledge and address systemic inequities and that in promoting that view it is okay to promulgate misinformation and to promote misconceptions is anathema to the government.

The first assumption I would like to address is the assumption that women, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities and aboriginal people are somehow enjoying special privileges that compensate for their disadvantage and that are way ahead of the general population. Informed individuals know that nothing could be further from the truth.

The 1995 United Nations human development report concluded that it is still an unequal world. Canada in practice is still in many respects an unequal country. Canadian employers agree with this.

A witness representing the Manitoba telephone system told members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the following:

There is very little evidence in the workforce to suggest that in the absence of affirmative measures or some intervention equality will indeed occur. We live in a society that prefers some values, some characteristics over others. The kind of legislation that employment equity represents is an appropriate intervention in the flow of business decision making.

That was stated by the private sector.

There was also the suggestion that the current Employment Equity Act has been so effective that it has eliminated employment problems for members of the designated groups. The facts speak for themselves.

The 1984 annual report on the Employment Equity Act, a copy of which all members of Parliament received, concluded that a number of Canadian companies covered by the legislation have yet to completely satisfy its intent. Of the 343 employers in the report, four employers had no female employees; 74 did not employ a single aboriginal person; 65 did not have persons with disabilities on staff; 28 employed no members of visible minority groups. This was the situation nearly eight years after the current act was proclaimed into force in August 1986.

Like other government members here today, I certainly applaud the progress that has been made over the years, but I think all members will agree that we have some distance to go.

Let us look at the suggestion that the market automatically solves inequities without government intervention, a suggestion that was heard from the last speaker. That theory was clearly addressed in the recently released United Nations report, the most exhaustive examination of the issue of inequality for women in our time. It was prepared by an international team of eminent consultants and stated:

The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality of opportunity because of the prevailing inequities in power structures. When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary, both through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative actions.

I remind the House that Canada is the number one nation in the world in its human development index ranking according to the UN. However, when we look at it closer and consider women's economic positions in our society, our country drops from number one to number nine.

To add insult to injury, there are some who use women, members of visible minority groups, aboriginals and persons with disabilities as scapegoats as if we were somehow to blame for the stresses resulting from our rapidly changing economy.

We are in the midst of one of the most momentous transitions in human history. In the span of this century we have shifted through the agricultural and industrial eras and are hurtling fast forward to the information age and the knowledge economy. If the general population finds itself a victim in this vortex, imagine how much greater the impact is on Canadians who are members of minority groups, on women, on persons with disabilities.

It is not fair to suggest, as the Reform minority report does, that statistical data are skewed to make the case for employment equity. Canada's statistics and its statistical analyses are the best in world, so much so that our data is sought after by governments and by academics everywhere. It is true that no statistics are perfect, including those for gross domestic product, unemployment, or demographics. But does the Reform Party seriously suggest that we should abandon the pursuit of social justice and abandon the pursuit of economic growth just because there are numerous ways to read the numbers?

Incredibly, the Reform Party report also asserts that employment equity somehow hurts designated groups. It suggests that designation "carries with it a presumption of racial and gender inferiority". I would like to hear the Reform Party stand before Women in Trades and Technology, who organized a letter writing campaign in support of Bill C-64, and say that. Letters to the human resources minister urged the government to go further. Many letters stated that much work needs to be done to urge, coerce, educate, and assist employers and unions to increase and enhance women's opportunities to train and work in their industries.

These women are asking the government to modify policy and program interventions to support and encourage true equality in the workplace. They are not alone. In case somebody thinks they are alone, let me remind the Reform Party and this House that women are 52 per cent of the population.

The vast majority of witnesses before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons fully endorsed the direction of our new legislation. They recognize that treating people differently in order to achieve equality has nothing to do

with inferiority. It has everything to do with ensuring each and every job applicant has an equal chance to prove his or her abilities.

Recently I saw a cartoon that showed a monkey, a seal, an elephant and a dog being told by a circus job interviewer: "For a just selection, everyone has to take the same examination. Now please, I would like each of you to climb that tree". The idea that there is some ideal to which we all must conform is ridiculous. It is also discriminatory, and Canadians will not put up with it. If this legislation does nothing else, it will finally put some of these outdated and damaging beliefs to rest. It will ensure that yet another generation does not adopt the hardened attitudes held by their elders and perpetuate systemic and overt discrimination.

Employment equity is a guarantee that every little girl and every little boy will grow up in this country secure in the knowledge that each can pursue his or her dreams, that they will some day work in a world that is fair, that is equal, that is free of racial slurs and unwanted pats on the backside, where doors are always open instead of being inaccessible. They will be assured of being citizens of a Canada where they can have a fighting chance of achieving their personal career goals.

Is that intrusive? Is it really so much to ask? Today's working Canadians and tomorrow's future parents, taxpayers, and employees expect no less. The hon. members of this House must not let them down.

I am convinced that Bill C-64 is the next logical step in our nation's progress. I am anxious to get on with the job.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to report stage of Bill C-64, in particular the motions being given today by the third party, the Reform Party.

Some of what I have heard here in the House troubles me a great deal, which is why I thought it only appropriate that I rise and try to put down some of the myths that are being put forward by the third party through these motions. I was likewise distressed with a colleague of mine, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

We heard, and I will quote as closely as I can, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth say that the bureaucracy should not be intervening in the matters of private enterprise. We heard that the government is being intrusive, according to the member for Calgary Centre, and I will try to quote him as closely as I can: "I have chosen as a member myself to be meanspirited, but the government is trying to get into the face and get into the lives of private enterprise". Those are pretty meanspirited remarks coming from the member for Calgary Centre.

It is the job of government to ensure that things are done as properly as they can be, as we work as a team for Canada and what is in the best interests of the people of this great land. For example, when we talk about getting in the face of private enterprise, as the member for Calgary Centre has mentioned, yes, the government in matters of transportation got into the face of the transportation sector when it came to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Would we have a national airline if the government did not intervene? Would we have a national system of airports if the government did not intervene? Would we have a Trans-Canada Highway if the government did not intervene? Would there be a stretch of road of Trans-Canada Highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Winnipeg? Of course not. Why would we build that chunk of road? Who would use that chunk of road? Very few people would use that chunk of road. Naturally private enterprises would say they are not going to build that chunk of road, it does not make any sense.

The government is here to provide the vision in order to make things happen that we know are going to be in the best interests of Canadians, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but in the long term in the best interests of Canadians.

I will try to explain why I believe the third party amendments, the motions, and the remarks of my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth are quite frankly outrageous and misdirected and are totally lacking in fact.

The first myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is about hiring the unqualified. We heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre take us down that road. The simple fact is that Bill C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an unqualified person. It does not do that. Why carry the myth? It is quite explicit in fact on that point.

Let me quote Mona Katawne of the Manitoba Telephone System who testified before the standing committee on the issue. She stated: "There is no evidence that hiring from among the designated group members is a lowering of qualifications. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. There are people from the designated groups who are both available to work and qualified to work."

The fact is that our economy has surpluses of qualified people from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out there. However, this myth persists because of misinformation, because there is a lack of looking at the facts.

A perfect example is the Gallup poll which appeared in the December 23, 1993, Toronto Star , just after we were elected to this place. The headline blared that 74 per cent opposed job equity programs. Let us take a look at the actual question that was asked: Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more women and minority group members for management positions, or should government take no action whatsoever and hire new employees based solely on their qualifications? The question unfairly focused on people to choose between actively attempting to hire more women and minority group members and hiring based on

qualifications. It is amazing, quite frankly, that only 74 per cent chose qualifications.

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

The second myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is about redressing the wrongs of the past. When this issue has come up with constituents, I have heard people ask why today's young white males have to pay for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers. I trust that I am not the only member of Parliament who has heard that remark. The short answer is they should not. Employment equity is about today's reality, today's problems, not yesterday's.

The simple fact is that in 1993 white men without disabilities made up nearly 55 per cent of all workers newly hired, even though they only make up 45 per cent of the labour market. On virtually any scale, people in the designated groups fare poorly in today's labour market. The issue is not what happened in 1955 or in 1925 but what is happening in 1995. There are still barriers to full participation by members of the designated groups. The goal is to end those barriers, not to create a new discrimination against someone else.

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

The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study that looked at people with mental handicaps. They calculated the loss to our economy from the large scale segregation of these people from our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to unemployment, social assistance costs, and lost consumption. They found that the cost to Canada's employment of keeping these people out of society is $4.6 billion a year. That is today's problem, not yesterday's problem.

The final myth I want to touch on is the issue of goals and quotas. We have said it before and I will say it again: the bill expressly prohibits the imposition of quotas. The goal setting that Bill C-64 calls for is driven by flexible targets based on real business assessments of what is doable. Those goals are tools that measure success in breaking down the barriers. In fact, business witnesses who appeared before the standing committee agreed. They have no problem with this approach.

If the hon. member for Calgary Centre had heard what went on at the standing committee he too would realize that. Do not get me wrong. The hon. member for Calgary Centre may be the jewel in the crown when it comes to employing people. He may have it right. But there are a lot of employers out there who have it wrong, and the hon. member has to come to terms with that.

Bill C-64 is not designated to create a numbers mentality. Employers who adopt that mentality and attempt to short circuit the process do no one any benefit. The intent is to create a climate that encourages employers to build a better, fairer workplace through rethinking how their current processes work in practice and developing better ones.

It would be easy for the government to do as the Reform Party suggests: to step back and do nothing to address the very real barriers in our labour market today. But it will not. The costs to our economy and our society are simply too high. Millions of Canadians are not prepared to accept a system that says do not do anything and let private enterprise take care of itself. They are not prepared to accept the notion that the response to the very real economic uncertainty faced by many workers is to set group against group.

Canadians are not asking for special privileges here. Most witnesses representing designated groups made that very clear. They are asking for strong efforts to push companies to end barriers to full participation. In doing so, it does not help to have the ill-informed comments made by members of the third party on this issue. They have chosen to see the world as a zero sum game where any gain by a person who is in a designated group must be at the expense of someone else. They have chosen to fan the flames of intolerance rather than trying to find the solutions that address the very real needs of more than half of Canada's workforce. It means we define merit in terms that are clear, relevant and legitimate, in terms we recognize, diversity and the different conditions under which people live and work.

Bill C-64 is about creating that kind of plan in workplaces right across the federally regulated sector based on overcoming myths through action. Who said there are none so blind as those who will not see?

I appeal to the third party to overcome these myths I have addressed. I appeal to the Reform Party to withdraw its motions. It would be the right thing to do.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just found out there is a positive aspect of being moved one more seat to the left. I am a little closer to the Speaker's plane of view. I appreciate being recognized in this very important debate.

This is one of the issues that really galvanizes what our party stands for. It also makes strikingly clear what lies at the heart of the Reform Party. I have very strong views when it comes to employment equity, affirmative action and government striking the fundamental policy framework that we expect our bureaucrats, our departments, our crown agencies and those businesses within the

federal realm of regulation in setting the parameters of the type of behaviour we expect them to follow.

This is not the first time employment equity has been debated in the House. In the last Parliament on a number of occasions, be they private members' bills or motions put forward on days to eliminate racial discrimination, members put on record what they believed about employment equity.

In the last Parliament we may have differed substantially on our economic approaches and policies and on our social policies but there was almost a unanimity of agreement with the New Democratic Party and with the Conservative Party when it was in government about a couple of fundamental facts about Canadian society.

One was that systemic discrimination unfortunately does exist. It exists in the federal workplace. It exists in the provincial workplace and it exists in the private sector. Anybody who would get up in the Chamber and indicate they believe there is no such thing as systemic discrimination clearly is from another planet or has been living with their head in the sand for longer than I have been on this earth.

Systemic discrimination is as real as the air we breathe and is as alive today as the people who sit in these chairs. More than once I have talked from the perspective of an MP who represents the largest indigenous black community in Canada, in Preston, North Preston, East Preston, Cherry Brook, Lake Loon. Those communities have been established in Nova Scotia a lot longer than the community I was born in, New Waterford. Most people in Nova Scotia see New Waterford as more of a Nova Scotian community than the Prestons which were founded by blacks from other parts of the globe over hundreds of years.

Preston community is six kilometres outside the boundaries of my city. My city has an unemployment rate of anywhere from 7.5 to 8.5 per cent. In the almost entirely black community, a ghettoized situation from 250 years ago, there are unemployment rates upward of 80 per cent in the winter.

One of the first things I did in 1988 after I was elected to represent the good people of the riding of Dartmouth was go to the Speaker of the day. I asked the Speaker, Mr. Fraser, whether it was possible to use some of my budget to get a survey done. Our budgets were more restrictive.

I explained what I wanted to do. I had gone to the bureaucrats. They are good people, not racists, not bigots. I asked them what information they had with respect to unemployment levels in the black community. They said they did not have any. Why not? How can there be federal programs such as skills training, job development and re-entry programs that are supposed to help those groups most dislocated from labour if there are no statistics about the degree of the problem in a particular community?

Bureaucracies knew there were problems but did not want to quantify them. We spent $15,000 out of my budget and we quantified. There were no startling revelations except that finally somebody white in a position of authority said the facts are the facts and they are indisputable. It was only then that bureaucracies felt comfortable trying to address the problems of barriers to entry and participation by visible minorities in my area.

I am saddened to say that seven years later I am worn down from my efforts of trying to battle systemic discrimination. Daily it becomes more systemic and rooted in the way bureaucracies operate.

The bill does not seek to tell employers they have to hire a black person or a native Canadian or a Cape Bretoner, which I am, if they are not qualified. It sets down a framework and sets out a policy objective that says: "If everybody in your organization looks like me, speaks like me and acts like me, they are more likely to hire somebody who looks like me, acts like me and speaks like me". That is not individual racism; it is the way life is in most organizations.

The bill seeks to build on the previous employment equity legislation passed in 1986 and say we have come a long way but we have a mighty long way to go yet. We cannot succumb to the insane attitudes of some on the loony right of the political spectrum and say, as the member from Windsor said: "I am all right Jack. What is your problem?"

I will tell the House what some of the problems are. A good businessman came to my office a week and a half ago. He operates without a line of credit at the bank and employs 17 to 20 people in the winter. He finances his operation through a finance company at 28.8 per cent interest. He cannot access capital through the regular sources. He has been shying away from the sheriff for 20 years. He is a black businessman. There are barriers to his access to capital from banks.

Seven years ago when we did the study the banks were angry because I fingered the banks and said there was systemic discrimination in their lending practices. They wailed. The facts coming to my office told me it was that way. How could an individual that resilient, who could operate from a line of credit from a finance company and who had no cash flow to work with stay in business? That was the best entrepreneur I ever saw.

Just think what would have happened if he was a white entrepreneur who had access to capital from the banks. Banks such as the

Royal Bank have recognized that when we talk about systemic discrimination we are not pointing a finger at individuals; we are stating facts based on statistics and we must work aggressively within a policy framework to deal with it.

This bill simply sets out the framework. It says the government is still very much concerned that its crown agencies and corporations may not be working as hard as they should to ensure there are no barriers to participation in the federal public service, crown corporations and the private sector which is federally regulated, to ensure the people who do the hiring, the people in power, recognize they may have to work a little harder. If we deal on the other side of it with the people in the labour market, maybe the young black who wants to be an entrepreneur does not understand he could be welcomed as a client of the bank. He also has his own barriers to participation in the equity market or the labour market.

Sometimes that extra effort is made to say: "We will hire 12 people and we have to make sure we do not send it just to the community college". The community college in my area does not have the proper participation of minority groups. It is not proportional. If employers say they have made a commitment to hire qualified individuals, and it is all about the merit principle, they must recognize that by past practices there may be some groups in society that do not feel they are wanted at the door and do not make the application.

Employers, because they have set it out as their policy to encourage qualified members of minority groups to participate, must make sure that instead of going just to the community college they also go to the Dartmouth East Black Learners Centre and say: "We need people with these skills. Are there some people you can send for us to look at?"

That is what this bill is about. It is about setting a direction. It is about setting a goal. It is about a process whereby we remind ourselves that systemic discrimination does exist and that we can do something about it to ensure individuals are not discriminated against based on colour, language, gender, sexual orientation or any of those other things that really should not make a difference.

I hope some of the misinformation from the Reform Party's minority report is put to the test. This is not about special treatment. This is about equal treatment and equal access. The bill does not solve the problem but it is another small step in the right direction toward allowing everyone regardless of colour, race or language to develop to the fullness of their potential. Governments are setting the tone and the direction to remove the obstacles to that full participation.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth United Nations world conference on women concluded recently. I was there as a delegate. I learned that many developed and developing countries look to Canada for leadership in issues of justice, equality and human rights.

I want to place Bill C-64 in that same international context. I want to look at our international obligations and how Bill C-64 will help us meet them. I want to consider some relevant international experiences with employment equity. I want to show the bill puts teeth in our commitment to equality and shows a leadership badly needed around the world.

First I will discuss recent landmarks in understanding this issue. On August 17 the United Nations development program released its sixth human development report. Apart from the overall assessment, the report focuses on the situation facing women around the world.

I am certain every member of the House took pride when once again Canada earned the highest ranking on the human development index. It is the third year running. It told the world what Canadians already know, that this country offers a quality of life that is second to none.

I know each one of us also saw that we placed ninth on the gender related development index. Our track record on the place of women in society is not so good. Why that low? One of the factors is the economic gap between men and women. Money talks, and in Canada right now that means men shout while women whisper. Some in the House say there are very good reasons for this gap. They say we should just stand aside while the market works its mysterious forces. This is not what the authors of the United Nations human development report say. They point out that trickle down theories and laissez-faire approaches do not work particularly well to raise the economic status of women:

The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality of opportunity because of prevailing inequities in power structures. When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary both through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative actions.

The government understands the need for real action. This bill addresses that need by making markets work better. It will help women enter occupations that traditionally have excluded them. It will help women make their way from lower wage occupational ghettos.

In 1993 in British Columbia women in full time occupations earned 67 per cent less than men. In 1993 in British Columbia women who had post-secondary education earned less than men with a grade 10 education. In 1993 in British Columbia, 99 per cent

of secretaries and stenographers were women, but they still earned 79 per cent less than male stenographers and secretaries.

We need this bill to remove the glass ceiling that still restricts women in many workplaces. It will do the same for aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Bill C-64 is consistent with our international obligations. For many years Canada has been a signatory to international agreements on discrimination, human rights, women's rights, and labour force issues. Let me touch on a few of these.

The United Nations has a number of conventions that cover equality issues. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women commits us to pursue the equality of the sexes. Article 24 reads:

States Parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

This includes modifying, and I quote again from the United Nations:

-the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

Bill C-64 begins to take those steps.

A similar commitment exists as a result of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 7 touches on that. It says that states parties to the covenant recognize the right to "equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no consideration other than those of seniority and competence".

Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian persons with disabilities find it difficult to achieve promotion in the workplace.

This bill is about finding and removing the barriers that prevent designated members from realizing their legitimate aspirations in the workplace of this country. Equal opportunity means removing barriers so people can get to the starting gate equally.

There are many conventions I can talk about: the international covenant on civil and political rights; the international covenant on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; and a number of international labour organization conventions.

Article 2 of the international labour convention says:

Members must undertake to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity in respect of employment and occupation.

It says that each member must undertake to enact such legislation as may be calculated to secure acceptance and observance of the policy. This is what we are doing here with this bill.

Canada must take its international commitments seriously. We negotiate, we sign, we lead, we ratify these agreements with the intention of living up to them, or else why do we do it? It is certainly true with conventions on human rights and workplace issues.

We can and we do point with pride to Bill C-64 and the existing Employment Equity Act, because as a predecessor it is an example of how this government wants to work to make equality of opportunity a real goal, not just something that is airy-fairy that we just talk about.

Canada is not alone in this process. Other countries have signed these conventions and many are dealing with the same issues we are dealing with here today.

For example, Australia is a country with which we have much in common. We are both senior members of the Commonwealth. We share similar constitutional and legal traditions. We both have significant aboriginal and visible minority populations. Persons with disabilities have become prominent advocates for their own cause. Women are taking a lead in society. Like Canada, Australia has an employment equity act too. Like us, they recognize an obligation to break down barriers, and they are doing so.

Let us look at The Netherlands. The celebration of the 50th anniversary of its liberation by Canadian soldiers has reminded us of our close ties with The Netherlands. When the Dutch government looked for a legislated approach to promote the full integration of their immigrants into the labour force, where do you think they turned? Which country do you think provided a model of effective and appropriate legislation? Canada.

Examples such as that show why Canada can attend international conferences with real pride. Regardless of the issue, we can point to initiatives we have taken at home, co-operation with other countries, and a commitment to results. This is true on workplace issues as well as human rights issues. We have much to do in Canada, however. This country has consistently tried to do more than meet a minimum standard. We have been motivated by the caring and tolerance of our society to do better.

We realize that equality of opportunity means much more than the absence of formal discrimination. It means building a climate that encourages everyone to participate in our society and our economy. That is becoming a lesson to the world. Many countries are coming to grips with equality issues. We are leaders. They look to us for leadership.

Canada has a distinguished history in human rights in the rest of the world. Countries that are looking for effective ways to improve human rights within their own borders are also looking to Canada. Countries that want to recognize their growing multicultural nature are looking to Canada. I saw over and over in Beijing how everyone turned to Canada for leadership. Everyone felt that Canada is the country in the world they all want to aspire to become.

The Canadian approach to employment equity is a real contribution to the international community. It starts with the idea that all Canadians share a commitment to opportunity and a willingness to find solutions. It speaks to the finest qualities in our national spirit. Passing this bill will send an important message to a world that needs more of this spirit and looks to Canada to lead the way.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s Judge Abella coined the phrase employment equity because she rejected the term affirmative action. Employment equity is a Canadian concept.

There are a lot of myths surrounding the issue of employment equity, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out. The recent publicity surrounding the affirmative action policies in the United States and employment equity in the recent election has led some people to some inaccurate conclusions. They get the impression from the media that suddenly Americans, including the U.S. Supreme Court, are turning against affirmative action en masse. A vocal few seem ready to jump on the bandwagon, asking: "If the Americans are not going to keep it, why should we?"

Before everyone falls for the myth that fairness in the workplace has fallen into disfavour all across North America, let me quickly review the facts. The real story is that programs that affirm employment equity are alive and well on both sides of the border. The most compelling argument for employment equity is that people actually want it.

Let us look at the situation in Ontario, where roughly two-thirds of businesses responding to a poll just after the recent election reported they are in favour of reforming or keeping that province's employment equity law as it is. Only 8 per cent said they would cease implementing employment equity initiatives if the law is repealed, with 69 per cent saying that it would not have any impact on their company's equity plans. That sentiment is reflected in comments by the director of human resources policy for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Ian Howcroft was reported as saying that many of their members have already started employment equity initiatives and that he believes most of them will continue.

Many members of the private sector are strong proponents of employment equity. They recognize the benefits to their corporation, benefits in terms of improving quality of working life in their organization and in real financial benefits. Unlike the members of the Reform Party, these corporations are moving their companies into the 21st century. The Reform Party members think we should still live in the 1950s world of Ozzie and Harriet.

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

1850s.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Part of the misunderstanding of the bill arises from the myths created in the recent Ontario election. Employment equity is not about quotas. Moreover, this bill specifically states that employers are not required to hire unqualified members or create new positions to satisfy the legislation's requirements.

The federal legislation takes a human resource planning approach to employment equity, relying on consultation and negotiation to achieve workplace goals. I know about this approach firsthand, as I worked as a consultant to the Ontario universities in developing training materials for employment equity.

Another prevalent and incorrect assumption is that the federal employment equity is a carbon copy of American affirmative action policy and furthermore that Americans are now rejecting it out of hand. Neither belief is true. Let us start with the most controversial features of the U.S. affirmative action program, set asides. Set asides require that a specific percentage of government contract funds go to minority contractors. These are mandatory preferences dictated by law. Polls show that although most Americans favour affirmative action, they are opposed to this kind of preferential treatment. I want to set the record straight on this point. There is absolutely no equivalent to set asides in the Canadian approach to employment equity. They simply do not exist and have never existed.

Let us look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Some people have a vague notion that this decision somehow struck down federal affirmative action programs, but let us look again. First, this decision was about set asides, which do not exist in Canada. Moreover, the Supreme Court decision did not strike down any federal laws or dismantle contracting policies, nor did it decide they were unconstitutional. The court simply requires federal affirmative action programs to meet the same standards of review already in place for state and municipal affirmative action programs, namely that the program serve a compelling interest and that it be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.

The bottom line is that no program was struck down by this decision. On the contrary, seven out of the nine justices confirmed that sometimes affirmative action is indeed required to counter the effects of systemic discrimination.

President Clinton pointed out that leading economists and distinguished American business leaders report their companies are stronger and their profits larger because of the advantages of workforce diversity. They insist that regardless of legislation they will pursue affirmative action because it is the key to future economic success in the global marketplace. Indeed, as I stated earlier, it is the Canadian corporations and the private sector that are very strong proponents of employment equity. The Reform Party purports to be a party for business special interest groups, so why can it not listen to the leaders in the private sector?

Seeking solutions to employment inequality is precisely what Bill C-64 is about. The objective of our legislation is to ensure equality and justice for all. Canadians have an unwavering faith in values of fairness and equity. We believe heart and soul that there should be no discrepancy between our words and our deeds. We are determined that our constitutionally guaranteed rights should be a daily fact of life for every child, woman and man in this country. Equality and equity is the very foundation of our nation.

It is in fact because of our employment equity legislation that we are on the leading edge in preparing this country for the unparalleled demands of the 21st century global economy. While we still have more to do in ensuring that all Canadians achieve their potential, our experience with employment equity has made us a world leader in the field, acting as a role model for other nations designing equity legislation. That is not rhetoric, but a reality of which every Canadian can be proud.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not really going to participate in this debate today in light of the excellent interventions by a number of my colleagues. Then the hon. member for Calgary Centre got into the act and started spouting the most unbelievable nonsense, so I felt it was necessary to correct some of the statements he made. Really, I was shocked. He worked himself into a real lather in the course of his speech about the evils of employment equity, which I thought most Canadians accepted.

I have some quotes which I think are going to leave him speechless. He will wish he had not spoken. He pretended he was speaking on behalf of the entire private sector in Canada in speaking to this set of amendments moved by his colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

I am surprised that a relatively enlightened member of the Reform Party would propose the amendments the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has proposed. One suspects that his leader told him that this was caucus policy and since he is the critic he had better propose the amendments, so he did. I am sure in his heart of hearts he wishes he did not have to put forward such ridiculous amendments. What he is really doing is gutting this bill. He is taking out all references in the bill to the private sector.

The private sector has lived with this legislation now for many years and has functioned with it. I have spoken with constituents of mine who are bound by this legislation, not because it is binding on them specifically but because if they wish to contract with the federal government they are required to comply with it. They have been in compliance for some years, with some initial discomfort but not significant. They have found that their workplace has improved as a result of their compliance with this legislation. That has been the experience of most of the private sector employers affected by this legislation who have found that compliance is not all that difficult. Not only is it not difficult. It results in a better working environment in the places where it has been applied.

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest must know this experience. He is a man of affairs; he has travelled around and has some businesses in the country. He must know the hon. member for Calgary Centre was talking through his hat this morning when he spouted the nonsense about the act being a bad thing for the private sector in Canada and one that stops job creation in the country. Quite frankly that is absolute rubbish.