Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the motion put forward by the hon. member to amend clause 6.
Let me say at the outset that clause 6 was included in the bill to dispel certain myths about employment equity. One such myth is that employment equity means hiring unqualified people. According to this myth employment equity requires employers to lower their standards and change their job requirements to accommodate inferior candidates.
This notion is absolutely false. It is pure nonsense. It is the complete misunderstanding of what employment equity is about and it is extremely degrading to members of designated groups.
We have included clause 6 in the bill to make it perfectly clear to everyone, so there can be no mistake. However the change proposed by the hon. member is unacceptable. Although it adds nothing of substance to the bill, it creates a host of additional problems by including the new notion of best qualified.
The first problem is obvious. What does best qualified mean? How do we determine best? Best according to whose definition? I do not deny that sometimes it may be possible to establish a very sophisticated, completely objective method to determine a best candidate, but too often best simply ends up meaning someone just like me. In these situations best becomes another excuse to create barriers. We do not need more barriers.
Who was best? Is the candidate with the most university degrees always the best? Let us say we are talking about hiring a cook or a manual labourer. Book learning is not the main qualification for the job. Obviously skill is. Is the candidate with a master's degree in law better qualified than the high school graduate, even though the degree has nothing to do with the job at all? Or, have we created just another barrier? I repeat that we do not need more barriers.
The government stands firm about employment equity. It does not require any employer to hire unqualified individuals. However it asks employers to look actively for qualified applicants in places they might not have previously looked. It asks them to find qualified workers in designated groups that have been overlooked and consider them along with other qualified candidates. It asks them to eliminate barriers in these processes, but it does not dictate the outcome of the hiring and the promotion decision. It certainly never asks them to hire someone who is not qualified.
Sometimes certain employers go further. Sometimes a big hearted employer will find and train people who have not had a chance. They will see to it that these people become qualified. Let us make no mistake. These employers do not have to do it. The law does not require it. However they find it brings their companies unexpected benefits.
I will tell a story about one such employer. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a crown corporation, recently instituted a special pilot program for four young people with intellectual disabilities. Three of the four have Down's syndrome. These four individuals were carefully trained for the company for temporary photocopying, filing and messenger jobs. They were always willing and co-operative. They were extremely proud of their new found independence and their success in this work. Their families were grateful that the responsibility for their children was being shared.
It is most interesting that although the four people required extra supervision they unexpectedly brought much happiness and compassion into the workplace. Though their lot in life was different they never complained. Their happiness and gratitude were contagious. They caused very beautiful qualities to blossom in their fellow workers who were touched and inspired by their innocence, simplicity and gratitude.
These four individuals brought a great deal of joy to the workplace. The project's participants, supervisors and workers received one of CMHC president's excellence awards in 1994. Though they may not have been the best qualified for the job according to traditional standards, they performed their job with enthusiasm and in doing it brought something special to the workplace. They made it a better workplace for everyone.
Sometimes the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. In looking for excellence we sometimes find it in the most unexpected places. We sometimes achieve it in the most unexpected ways. This is one lesson of employment equity. I would not want to tie in any way the hands of an employer who wants to undertake an innovative program such as the one at CMHC.
I frankly do not know what the full impact of including best qualified in this section might be. I fear, however, that it would ultimately constrain the efforts of employers who will look for best in new areas and for best in the sum total of the parts. For these reasons I cannot support the motion.