Debates of Oct. 4th, 1995

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.

Employment Equity Act

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Liberals, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party yesterday, we agreed and would seek unanimous agreement to amend clause 25 which will be debated as part of group 5, with an amendment already given to-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Will the member please excuse the Chair. The member probably thought the debate was over yesterday. Other speakers wish to speak. We will have to deal with his point when the other speakers are finished on the earlier group of motions.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we left off, you were about to put the question on the last motion that had been debated, which happened to be mine. Do you still intend to do that or are we proceeding with a new group of motions?

[The Deputy Speaker]

To assist the hon. member, we are still on group No. 4. I believe he already spoke to this group of motions, if I remember correctly. Does the hon. member wish to speak again to this question? If he does, we will need the unanimous consent of the House.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

When the debate was adjourned, you were about to put the question on Motion No. 7, which happens to be mine. If there are still members who wish to speak to this motion, I would be glad to listen to them. I was just wondering when the vote would be.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As I said before, there are no members who wish to speak, so we will have the vote later on.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand the hon. member was first on the speaking order and that I would speak second, if that pleases Your Honour.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair was given a list of three people wishing to speak. The hon. member for Central Nova was the first on the list. Does she wish to cede her place to the hon. member for Rosedale?

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Central Nova for ceding her place to enable me to attend to other business later this afternoon.

Equal access to job opportunities is a principle Canadians adopted several years ago. Other nations think highly of us because we do more than pay lip service to equality. We take proactive steps to make equality a reality in the everyday lives of our citizens.

Bill C-64 will do much to expand opportunities for genuine equality in the workplace for women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

It is our responsibility to ensure that this legislation achieves this important goal whenever possible.

That is why, like many of my colleagues who spoke earlier, I have a serious problem with Motion No. 7 introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The hon. member's motion takes the need for co-operation in implementing the Employment Equity Act to an extreme that I do not believe would achieve the desired result. The government's perspective is to do what is necessary to implement and administer Bill C-64 in the most productive way possible but responsibility for implementation administration must remain with employers. They are the ones who ultimately have to answer to the commission if they fail to meet their responsibilities.

Let us consider what would happen if we adopted the hon. member's motion and moved from the bill's current requirements for collaboration between employers and employees to what might be called a co-management arrangement. For one thing, it would reduce the bill's requirement for consultation. The hon. member's motion if adopted would mean that there is no longer any need to consult regarding implementation or revision of employment equity plans.

Bill C-64 as it presently stands allows the commission or a tribunal to order consultation. I find it surprising that the hon. member who is seeking to enrich and improve the bill would want to delete provisions regarding consultations and replace them with weaker provisions that would not be subject to a direction or order. I would ask him and the party he represents to reconsider the bill from that perspective. It seems to me and to the government that the amendment as proposed actually weakens rather than strengthens the bill, contrary to the avowed intent of the hon. member.

Another Canadian characteristic that makes us the envy of others is our willingness to work together for the collective good of all our citizens. Voluntary collaboration and co-operation are innate qualities of being Canadian. I know many of us in the House seek and strive to enshrine those principles in all the work we do. I have every confidence that management and labour will collaborate to ensure the most effective implementation of employment equity plans. Why should they not? It surely is to the advantage of both.

It is in creating plans and legislation of this kind that one achieves an appropriate balance between the needs of labour and the needs of management. In doing so we have created a labour-management relations atmosphere which is beneficial to both parties. That is what we seek to achieve in this bill.

As my colleagues before me have said, we have already deliberated over the Bloc's concerns in committee. The government feels that having given these concerns due consideration, we are satisfied with the way the provisions now stand.

I remind the hon. member that the Employment Equity Act is designed to help move us closer to true equality in the workplace. It is not designed to change other aspects of employer-employee relationships. However, that would be the unfortunate result if we adopted the hon. member's motion.

The way the bill now stands, collaboration is a requirement. The ultimate responsibility for making decisions however lies with employers and that is the way it should be. There is a difference between the requirement for collaboration and discussion and the ultimate responsibility for the decision which surely must be taken by employers who have both the financial and managerial responsibility for ensuring that those decisions are properly carried out.

Hon. members know from their own experiences that we put much more effort into something when the effort is willingly given and not obtained through coercion. One cannot legislate co-operation and a positive attitude. We have seen that in the workplace and we are trying to strive to avoid confrontational situations in the workplace.

Positive co-operation comes about because the parties involved bring the right attitude to the task at hand. That is what the current provisions in the bill will achieve. They will create an atmosphere within which collaboration, co-operation and discussion will take place.

They will not seek however to create what the member's amendment seeks to create which is a sort of co-management regime that would by its very nature lead to strife between those on the management side with their responsibilities and those on the labour side with their responsibilities. It would totally confuse the two roles which both parties properly play in the workplace and would substitute, instead of this atmosphere of co-operation and collaboration, an atmosphere of mistrust between the two parties between which it is very important to establish good working relationships.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, for the reasons I just mentioned, I cannot support Motion No. 7.

[English]

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address this honourable House today with respect to Motion No. 7 brought forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The government appreciates the hon. member's input into Bill C-64. However, we are concerned that his motion would have an effect that would not be beneficial to the administration of the Employment Equity Act. The way the motion reads, if it were to be adopted, it would in essence establish an employer-employee co-management arrangement under the act.

Members of the Bloc raised this issue in committee and the government was responsive and flexible in giving it due consideration. However, if we adopted the motion before us it might very well have negative ramifications in the way employment equity is administered. Responsibility must be clear in this regard.

Nevertheless I hasten to add that the intent of the legislation before us is not to create situations where management is imposing employment equity on workers without their input. This is not the intent at all. On the contrary, the current act encourages and requires productive consultations between employer and employee representatives. As I said previously, the government appreciates constructive suggestions. That is why we listened and accepted recommendations made in committee.

The effect of those recommendations is that Bill C-64 now requires collaboration between employer and employee representatives when preparing, implementing and revising employment equity plans.

However, the key aspect of this arrangement is collaboration, not co-management. The responsibility for making final decisions must remain with employers. After all, they are the ones who must answer to the commission regarding implementation of the act. Hon. members will agree that the person who is held responsible for an action must retain the ability to make final decisions.

The government is trying to send a clear message here. For employment equity to be fair and effective, a co-operative effort in implementing its principles is required by both management and labour. The emphasis is very much the same, emphasis the government takes in its own relationships with other governments, the private sector, community organizations and so on. I am referring to the concept of partnership, a productive effort by all concerned to reach the same goal. That is exactly what came through in committee regarding the issue: collaboration, yes; co-management, no.

I remind the hon. member that adoption of his motion is not as simple as he may think. It would have widespread implications because the act does not have a provision which allows a tribunal to issue orders against a bargaining agent. In other words, collaboration requires just that, the two parties work together to reach a common goal voluntarily. Enforced collaboration is an oxymoron and experience shows that it makes for unproductive relationships.

Management must have final responsibility for its obligations under Bill C-64. It is management that must answer to the commission if it fails to meet its obligations under the act. It is unacceptable to adopt a situation wherein the employer is held responsible but does not have the ultimate authority to address that responsibility.

The government does not wish Bill C-64 to alter the framework of labour relations in a fundamental manner. That is not the purpose of the legislation before the House. Its purpose is to help move Canada toward true equality in the workplace. This is a step of which all Canadians should be very proud. Passage of Bill C-64 will enshrine in law the principle of equality for all Canadians. It will help to lay down a level playing field for those in the designated groups, specifically women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Bill C-64 also fulfils the government's pre-election commitment to strengthen the existing Employment Equity Act by extending coverage to virtually the entire public service. I believe hon. colleagues should also agree that fairness dictates that all Canadians have due access to employment opportunities. Therefore we must implement this legislation in a manner that will encourage co-operation and goodwill on the part of both employers and employees.

We thank the hon. member for his input. However, the government is satisfied with the bill's emphasis on collaboration. We are not prepared to move toward co-management. For that reason I cannot support the member's Motion No. 7.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise during debate to discuss Motion No. 7.

The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and his colleagues have made some eloquent points on behalf of this amendment, both here and previously in committee. That is the reason the government has already amended the original bill. That amendment made sense. To accept this amendment does not.

I want to take a few minutes to underline some of the essential elements in the government's approach to government equity to show why I will not be able to vote for this motion.

Two years ago at this very moment, almost every one of us was engaged in one of the most important federal election campaigns of our time. I was proud to campaign under the banner of a party and a leader with a clear plan. Our red book was a blueprint for action. It was no wish list. It was based on years of listening to Canadians and an active policy development process. It was a comprehensive approach grounded in a realistic perspective on what government can do.

As we well know by now, one of the commitments we made was to strengthen the Employment Equity Act. The old government had the information. It knew what needed to happen but it chose not to act. We said that it was time to move on this issue and we have with Bill C-64.

The red book was more than just a series of individual commitments. It was based on a sense of how Canada works best. Part of that was our understanding that business and government are not adversaries. We need each other. Canada needs a strong business community. We need an attractive business climate. A government that operates in an intelligent and strategic way fosters that kind of community in that kind of climate.

In essence we let business people do their work without reasonable interference from government and we look for ways to build productive partnerships. That has been our approach to employment equity. We know that voluntary efforts at equity simply have not worked, therefore legislation is needed but not heavy handed approaches.

Many of my colleagues have spoken of the willingness of the federally regulated business community to work with us on equity. I need not repeat the points they have made. One basic reason they are doing so is that we have adopted a human resource planning model for this legislation. We have designed this process to maximize co-operation. We also designed the process to maximize co-operation in the workplace.

Unions most certainly do have a place in this process. Unions do care. The labour organizations that made presentations to the committee stressed their commitment to social justice. We understand their contribution to workplace attitudes toward equity programs. We appreciate their concerns about making employment equity work well, given issues such as seniority rights.

For all those reasons, government members on the committee decided to amend the bill, to underline the requirement for consultation with bargaining agents. The government understood the need to ensure that consultation was real and the bill, as it has come to us from committee, requires collaborations.

This is an important step. To go further is to make a mistake. To require employers to share authority with unions in some kind of co-management regime is to blur accountability. At the end of the day employers in law and in fact are responsible to the government for their achievements in employment equity. Unions are not.

The plan we offered to Canadians in 1993 did not envision the federal government shaking up the framework of federal labour relations. We believe that businesses understand the approach we have laid out for employment equity. We also believe they understand that getting unions on side makes sense in a human resources planning model. We believe that they will pursue collaboration in the spirit that is set out in this bill as it is before us now.

However, the government sees no need to force a process on employers that may simply not work for any number of local reasons. We hope they will take on partnerships for employment equity but we will let them decided based on their own situations. I have a great deal of faith that the businesses and federal government employers covered by this legislation will see as we do. They will capitalize on this opportunity to break down the barriers that may deny them the best from their workers or those who could be. I think they will do the right thing and they will do it in the way that works best.

The bill has already moved to underline the need for collaboration. It retains the emphasis on employer accountability. That is the right balance. It is the approach I will continue to support.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.