Debates of Oct. 4th, 1995

Employment Equity Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen :

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Group No. 5, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, on a point of order.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Liberal members, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, I would ask for unanimous consent to amend my motion. The amendment has been put together in consultation with the government and will improve my motion.

The table officers are already in possession of the amendment, so we would ask unanimous consent at this time to replace the motion.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to accept the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

moved, by unanimous consent:

That Bill C-64, in clause 25, be amended by adding after line 30, on page 18, the following:

"1.1 Where

(a) an employer has been informed of a non-compliance by a compliance officer under subsection (1) and the finding of non-compliance is based, in whole or in part, on the apparent under-representation of the aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities or persons with disabilities in the employer's work force, as reflected in the employer's work force analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a), and

(b) the employer believes that the apparent under-representation is attributable to the decision of employees who may be members of the designated groups concerned not to identify themselves as such or not to agree to be identified by the employer under subsection 9(2), the employer may inform the compliance officer of such.

(1.2) Where the employer satisfies the compliance officer that the finding of non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason described in paragraph (1.1)(b) and that the employer has made all reasonable efforts to implement the employment equity, the compliance officer shall take the reason into account in exercising any powers under this section.

(1.3) In satisfying the compliance officer under subsection (1.2) that the finding of non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason mentioned in paragraph (1.1)(b), the employer must do so by means other than the identification of individual employees in its work force that the employer believes are members of designated groups who have not identified themselves as such, or agreed to be identified by the employer as such, under subsection 9(2)."

Mr. Speaker, those thousands of Canadians watching this on television have just seen that we really do earn our keep from time to time.

The amendment speaks to the fact we live in the land of employment equity or affirmative action. Because this is the first time today in which we are going to be speaking to Bill C-64, I should bring to the attention of those hundreds of thousands of Canadians glued to their television sets wondering what is going on that this bill is the affirmative action or employment equity bill.

Employment equity is a phrase coined by Judge Abella about 15 years ago to describe affirmative action because there were people who felt that affirmative action really did not find a lot of popularity in the land. So we are living with employment equity.

Bill C-64 would expand the notion of affirmative action in the federal workforce to everyone covered by the Treasury Board and to any company in the private sector doing business with the Government of Canada with 100 employees or more.

On the face of it, who would argue with the notion of affirmative action or employment equity-except that employment or any advantage or anything in our society based on race or on quotas is inherently discriminatory.

One of the very first articles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms speaks to the notion of all Canadians being equal. Then the next paragraph says except those Canadians who are in specific designated groups and these Canadians may be assisted at the expense of the equality of everyone by special advantages. If that were not in the charter this amendment would certainly not see the light of day, because it would be against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is the kind of anomaly we have to understand and somehow work around. Here we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says this kind of discrimination should not exist in our land, and then we say we will allow this kind of discrimination. The net result is that we have affirmative action laws. We have a system whereby people are able to gain promotion or gain employment or advantages of some description based on a quota.

As members know, today we are speaking to the amendments. We are supposed to be keeping our comments closely related to the amendment before us. The amendment I am speaking to relates to the responsibilities of the compliance officer.

We are now living in a country that is under the rule of employment equity or affirmative action. That means that certain employers, including the federal government, and certainly all of the private sector employers who have 100 employees or more, will wake up one day to a knock on the door. The knock on the door

will be from the compliance officer who is representing the federal government. The compliance officer will have significant powers to be able to delve into the affairs of the company to see if the employer is in compliance with the legislation, and the employer must prove it.

This is where race questions come in on the forthcoming census. This is why the questions about race have to be asked. The compliance officer will say that according to the last census, in a certain geographic area there are a certain number of green people, a certain number of yellow people, a certain number of people who speak this language and that language, and therefore the employer must employ people in the same proportion as the people in that community and they will be given quotas.

The employer will say that normally they hire the best people; it does not matter who they are or what their education is, what their sex is, they are hired on merit. The compliance officer will say they will have to take affirmative action into the mix, that they cannot just hire on merit any more, they have to look at both of the equations. Then the employer says come in and have a look around and see what we have.

Let us say that in a room there are 20 people working, and every one of them is from a visible minority or from some other designated group. The compliance officer looks at his list and says it says on the sheet that they do not have anybody who self-identifies as one of the disadvantaged groups. If you look around, my God, everybody in the place is in the designated group.

The problem is that we Canadians do not get up in the morning and ask what part of what victim group we are in and look for the support of the state to get anywhere in my life, seeking advantages that are not common to everybody.

In the purview of the House of Commons there are 1,700 employees. Recently, people were asked to voluntarily identify themselves as to what designated group they fall into. Only 50 people said they fell into one of these designated groups. Only 30 per cent of the people responded. That is not the kind of people Canadians are. We do not respond to that. We do not want a constitution or laws based on race. We want laws based on the equality of all individuals.

In any event, we have this legislation and we have pointed out the error, the problem, or the hole in it. The government looked at it and very wisely assumed our counsel and said we had a good point.

We do not like the legislation and we will vote against it. If we can improve it we will try because when we wake up in the morning it will be in the driveway.

I visited my brother-in-law a few years ago. He was looking at a new motorcycle and he had the brochure on the kitchen table. His wife came home, saw the brochure, and went ballistic. He asked her why she got so mad and she said "Because the brochure is on the kitchen table today and tomorrow the motorcycle will be in the driveway". That is the same story on this legislation. Today the brochure is on the table and tomorrow the legislation will be in the driveway, and there is nothing we can do about it. The government has its massive majority and it is going to push the legislation through come hell or high water. We must try to make it better in any little way we can.

Giving credit where credit is due, the government saw that the amendment improved the legislation and it made an amendment that improved the amendment we submitted. We end up with better legislation, which is how the House works from time to time.

I am speaking in support of the amendment, which will make this draconian legislation a little less draconian, perhaps a bit better. There is a ray of sunshine and light that comes into the House from time to time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would yield to my hon. colleague from Toronto. However, I thank her for the privilege.

Speaking very briefly to this amendment, I would like to refute some of the misinterpretations, though not done with malice, by the hon. member.

He indicated in his opening remarks that while subsection 15(1) talks about the equality of all Canadians, in essence he argued that subsection 15(2) negates this by saying that we are not equal because of race. That to me is a misinterpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have more faith in the framers, fathers, and parents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think what section 15 tells us is that we should have equal benefit and protection of the law, all Canadians on an equal basis, irrespective of race, disability, origin, or gender. At the same time, subsection 15(2) deals with disadvantaged people, as visible minorities may be, people of First Nations origin, women, and persons with disabilities.

In subsection 15(2) the framers of our charter of rights and freedoms were trying to prevent possible dilatory tactics on the part of people who would complain that government can introduce legislation that will address those very disadvantages. They are not being given advantages; they are only being restored to equality. They are disadvantaged, so we must restore them to equality. They are not being restored to superiority. I think that has to be made very clear to all Canadians.

Therefore subsections 15(1) and (2) demonstrate the ingenuity of Canadians.

In his opening remarks the hon. member indicated that quota is a way of giving advantages. For the same reason, it is not. On a very close reading of the bill itself, quota is prohibited. How clear can we be? The law as proposed and tabled in the House states that no one may impose a quota, not even the enforcement officer. We have to forget about this being quotas.

Certainly the member in trying to sustain his argument about quotas indicated those people in this disadvantaged group are to be employed in the proportion they exist in the population in the community. That is wrong. That is not what the bill states. The bill states that it is in proportion to the available qualified people. Why not? Why would one argue against the qualification of others only because of colour, disability, origin or gender? The bill states that it is in proportion to the number of qualified people, again sustaining the principle of equality.

On the point of census on race, as I indicated to the media, we have nothing to be ashamed of when we are asked that we should say that we are Canadians. The census is one taken among Canadians. Therefore it is a given that this is a census of Canadians. If we are asked about our origins and our heritage, we should be proud. I am proud to be a Filipino Canadian. The Jews are proud to be Jewish Canadians. Ukrainians are proud because they are Canadians as well. We are proud of our heritage. That is what our nation has taught us. It has given us self-confidence, self-worth and dignity.

On the motion itself, I agree with the hon. member that this is an example of co-operation taking place in the House. It is also a clear example that the government, when it sees a good amendment, tries to improve on it and makes it even better. We deal in this amendment, which was reached by consensus by all parties in the House, with non-fulfilment of the employment equity plan as a consequence of a poor identification that is based on self-identification.

I call to the House's attention that with this improved amendment we have also sustained another principle, confidentiality. I see the member who originally proposed the motion is smiling. I think this is what reconciliation is all about. We should be able to have a new principle without killing another principle. We should have one principle strengthen the other. Here we are preserving the principle of confidentiality.

Why does the government agree to this amendment, which was also refined by the government? It is because we heard witnesses acknowledge the limitations of the self-identification system. However, witnesses have also told the committee that we must retain the privacy and confidentiality of information. Obviously, we have to reconcile these two views.

We were not shown any other method by which to identify except by coercion. We agreed at the committee level that coercion would do more harm than good. Therefore, in the absence of an alternative tool, in the absence of limitation, the committee initiated that we should retain the self-identification approach. However, at the same time, the committee proposed that there be more openness on the part of employers to hold employer and employee meetings on a regular basis so that there would be a feeling of rapport between employees and employers. At the same time information sessions must be held by the employers to inform employees of the importance of identifying themselves so we can truly monitor the progress of employment equity in a given workplace.

As well, the committee recommended that managers in those businesses be given special training to enable them to be more persuasive of the need for self-identification.

On the issue of self-identification, in the spirit of this act it is very critical that the process be held in a climate or atmosphere of trust and confidentiality. It can only be accomplished if we truly convince employees that the purpose of self-identification is to ensure employment equity in the workplace. Nobody would disagree with that kind of approach.

On that note, I am pleased we have been able to arrive at the motion proposed by the member for Edmonton Southwest that has refined by the government. It is a classic example that the government always listens to good proposals whether they come from the opposition or from its own members.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 11A. I understand the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has a question about whether the text of the motion is the same in the two official languages. Does he wish to rise on a point of order?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The table officers are presently looking into it. There seems to be some concern that the French text is not the same as the English text. We need to have that clarified.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There seems to be a problem with the Translation of the last part of the motion. Since the original motion was in English perhaps, if it is acceptable to the member and the rest of the members in the House, we could take it as the one that will apply. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has heard Motion No. 11A. Is it in accord with his understanding of the motion that was moved by unanimous consent?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 11A agreed to.)

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

moved

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20, the following:

"(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint persons a ) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole; and b ) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20, the following:

"(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint persons a ) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole; or b ) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''

Mr. Speaker, for your information, my colleague is Mr. Deshaies, and I thank him for supporting the motion.

I would simply like to say what it is about. One of the innovations in this bill, which has earned the support of the official opposition, is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be made specifically responsible for enforcing the Employment Equity Act. No doubt, for those not familiar with employment equity, it would be useful to point out that it involves making arrangements to ensure that four categories of people in our society: women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities may finally take their rightful place in the labour market.

One of the means the bill proposes, is obligation, which applies to both the private sector and the public sector-making the public sector subject to the provisions of the bill is another one of its innovations. This means that, once the bill receives royal assent, 300,000 other Canadians and Quebecers will be covered by employment equity.

One of the obligations under this bill is that of preparing an employment equity plan, which is to be submitted the following June to the director responsible for the program at Human Resources Development Canada. It will be up to the Minister of Human Resources Development to combine all the plans submitted by both the private and public sectors.

The reason I say this is very important is because, when plans are missing, when an employer fails to submit an employment equity plan within the required time period and fails to make all reasonable efforts-the expression used in the bill-to achieve the employment equity objectives he set for himself, then a course of redress is possible. That is where the amendment enters in.

For the first time since the Employment Equity Act was assented to, that is since 1986, the human rights commissioner will be able, on request and as he sees fit during summary proceedings where there has been an admission of guilt, to establish an employment equity review tribunal.

This is an extremely important body for enforcing the act because there is no provision for a right of appeal. The commissioner will therefore have the responsibility of creating a committee from whose decisions there may be no appeal, as the hon. parliamentary secretary who is so fascinated by these questions is aware. In other words, decisions will be final and binding.

The Bloc's amendment, which I believe is a well thought out amendment, will certainly gain government support, since this government is beginning to feel more and more alone.

The amendment will consist in ensuring that the three administrative officers called upon to hear the case will come from designated groups.

We feel that this is important, that there must be a correlation, a link, between what it is felt that this act represents and those who will be bringing down a decision in one of these administrative proceedings.

These are the reasons it is so vital for this bill to be amended and for the commission members not to be already in the employ of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission employees do a good job, no denying; they are well informed about the various statutes concerning human rights, but they have never brought down decisions relating to employment equity. We on this side of the House would like to see a specific clause in this bill devoted to the Human Rights Commission's ability to select from

among the general population people to represent women, the disabled, visible minorities and of course aboriginal people.

We feel that it will be far more worthwhile for this tribunal not to require any exceptional procedures and for it to be flexible. The only thing that will be exceptional will be the rights of appeal, as I have already stated. The principles of natural justice will have to apply, but should a tribunal decision be found to have been in error, there would still be the possibility of applying for an appeal to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal.

Basically, we think it would be useful to amend the bill so that the commissioners who sit on these tribunals are members of the groups for whom we are trying to ensure representation.

I must say I regret, and I say this with my usual frankness, that the government was not very receptive to this amendment in committee. Now you know my philosophy: I always do everything out in the open. I told the government I would introduce an amendment, and they have not been very receptive.

I hope that between consideration in committee and the debate we are having today, the government will have reconsidered, because this is supported by representatives of the cultural communities who appeared before the committee and by the unions.

I may recall that this amendment would not involve additional expenditures, since in any case, it does not change what the bill now prescribes, which is the presence of three commissioners whose remuneration shall be paid by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Since the government has maintained the same designation procedure and did not feel it was necessary to add another category, the groups are still the same, in other words, women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. In committee we discussed the relevance of adding a fifth or sixth category but concluded that we did not have enough information on other groups in society that might experience specific discrimination in the workplace.

Since the designated groups were maintained and are still designated on the basis of self-designation, I think it makes sense to take the same approach when administrative authorities are asked to hand down rulings, that is, when an employment equity review tribunal is appointed.

I have the impression, and I say this with the utmost caution, that this is also an amendment the Reform Party would like to see. Again, and we cannot repeat this often enough, this will not involve any additional budgetary expenditures, since the composition of the employment equity review tribunal remains the same when a tribunal is established at the request of the human rights commissioner, since according to the bill, establishment of a tribunal may be requested by either the employer or the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We feel this amendment will considerably improve the bill. I hope it will receive the support of a majority of the members in this House.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am proud, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, of the major step forward we are about to take in matters of equality and human rights with the passing of this bill on employment equity.

I would also like to thank our colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his strong and sincere commitment to human rights and to promoting equality and equity for all of Canada's citizens.

I thank him for his ongoing efforts in this regard, both on the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled People and here in the House of Commons. He continues to express his commitment with the motions he is putting before the House today in order to further improve this bill on employment equity.

With the motions we are debating, that is, Motions Nos. 13 and 14, he is proposing that the people appointed to an employment equity review tribunal themselves represent designated groups or have knowledge or particular experience in this area.

Given the legislation it applies to, the motion is highly justifiable in theory. However, it seems fairly clear to us, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, with all due respect to my colleague, that it is literally inapplicable in practice. For the information of my fellow members, I think it would be useful to first look at the nature and the function of this tribunal and to put it in the context of the logic of this bill so we can understand when and how it intervenes and how it is made up. First, when does it intervene?

The employment equity review tribunal takes action following an intervention by a compliance officer with an employer governed by the act. When should a compliance officer audit an employer? When there is a need to determine if an employer fulfils his or her obligations under the act.

Who decides if an audit must be conducted? Again, this decision is made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to which the bill gives the authority to enforce the act and monitor employers' compliance.

Clause 22 of the bill provides that the commission is responsible for the enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by the sections that concern them.

The human rights commission determines if a given employer is complying with the employment equity requirements outlined in the act.

To assume this responsibility, the commission may designate a person to conduct compliance audits of employers on its behalf. This person is the compliance officer referred to in clause 23. If the audit reveals that the employer failed to fulfil any of his or her obligations, the compliance officer tries to reach an agreement with the employer to implement the corrective measures required.

However, if the compliance officer and the employer cannot come to an agreement, the commission may order the employer to correct the situation. During the time limits set out in clause 27, the employer can challenge the commission's decision by asking the president of the human rights tribunal panel to conduct a review, again under clause 27. As for the commission, it has the same recourse if the employer does not comply with its decision within the prescribed deadline.

It is at this point that, in either case, the employment equity review tribunal becomes involved. Under clause 28, the tribunal consists of one member of the human rights tribunal panel appointed by the president of that panel. In more complex cases, the president can appoint a tribunal of three members.

The most basic arithmetic shows that the first part of Motions Nos. 13 and 14 tabled by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are unnecessary since, in most cases, the tribunal would consist of only one person. Indeed, we cannot see how a single person could represent designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole.

The member supports his argument by saying that the tribunal will often consist of more than one member if Motion No. 12 is carried, in addition to those cases where the president will deem appropriate to appoint three people. But again, the number of members would still be too small to ensure significant representation of designated groups.

Even if we implement the idea of a degree of representation for designated groups, we will unnecessarily complicate the already complex task of the president of the panel, while also, in some cases, casting a doubt regarding the impartiality of this judicial process. In short, that part of the motion would create more problems than it would solve.

The second part of the motion is definitely more reasonable and easier to implement. It provides that, in the opinion of the president, the persons appointed as members of an employment equity review tribunal are highly knowledgeable about employment equity, or have substantial experience in this area. The government has already said it agrees with that idea. The standing committee which reviewed the bill passed an amendment requiring that, when appointing tribunals, the president of the panel take into account the knowledge and experience of people in the area of employment equity.

I believe that the amendment proposed by the committee is quite similar to the one tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Moreover, the same clause, specifically clause 28(7), provides that the president of the panel may hire persons having technical or special knowledge to assist or advise a tribunal. Clearly, the bill already provides sufficient guarantees that the tribunal will rely on sound knowledge in the area of employment equity. Consequently, in my opinion, the amendment proposed by the hon. member is absolutely not necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the hon. member for London-Middlesex, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Indian Affairs.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his proposed amendment. Clearly he has heard an argument that was made during the hearings of the committee that he believes has merit. Having said that, I will not vote in favour of his amendment. I believe the essential goal of the amendment has already been captured in the change which the committee made to Bill C-64.

The standing committee achieved the appropriate balance in the legislation. It responded to the essence of the points it heard on the issue. It did so in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the bill. There are many practical reasons why going further simply will not work.

We have often heard that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That should apply in the work of the new employment equity review tribunals. If we want the system to work as well as it must, then we should want the most competent persons to hear cases.

That becomes even more important when we understand how complex the cases that will come before these tribunals can be. They will often involve equity and human rights considerations. They will consider real world business practices and human resource management approaches. They will involve a careful assessment and balancing of needs and priorities. That demands a reasonable level of expertise in the members of a tribunal. Yet, as many witnesses pointed out, some members of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel have not necessarily had any real knowledge of employment equity issues in the past. They have not necessarily come in to cases with any expertise in workplace issues.

Some employer and labour representatives said this was no place for on the job training and yet that is what they have seen. They cited examples in which the individuals hearing cases clearly knew far less than the people appearing before them. The result was frustration, added cost and some doubt as to whether a truly just decision could be rendered. In the same vein, representatives of designated groups saw a need for tribunal members who were truly aware of their situation. They were concerned that tribunal members would not understand the barrier they faced and the need for action.

When we look at the committee's report we see that witnesses offered many suggestions on how to improve this state of affairs. This proposed amendment draws on some of those ideas.

The committee took a different course. I think it was a better course. It chose to amend Bill C-64 by requiring the president of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel to give due consideration to the expertise of individuals he or she might appoint to employment equity review tribunals. That amendment would give the president of the panel a clear direction without tying his or her hands.

In a way, that decision is consistent with the direction of the entire bill. The emphasis is on reasonable efforts to place qualified people in this role. It does not set a quota. It does not incorporate the labour relations based model into the process. It does not assume that there should be representatives of perspectives that are in probable opposition to each other. Moreover, it permits a flexible approach where appropriate. The goal is to appoint tribunal members who understand the issues and who can rule on them fairly.

Not only are there sound philosophical reasons for the House to support the committee's approach and to reject the amendment, there are sound practical reasons to do so as well. One of the most important pertains to the size of the tribunals. Tribunals do not have seven or nine people on them who can be chosen to fill certain quota needs. A tribunal will have either three or just one person.

If three persons are hearing a case, and that was the preference of the committee as hon. members may recall, how will the representation issues be resolved? That problem becomes unsolvable if a one person tribunal is established. Hon. members should remember that one person tribunals may often be appointed in less complex cases. In those instances, representation of designated groups, expertise and experience simply cannot be achieved in a fashion that most people will see as fair.

Clearly it is not possible to make a system of proportional representation work well for three people and it simply cannot work for one person. It is far better to concentrate on expertise and experience. In any event, representation is taking care of itself.

When Keith Norton, the president of the Canadian human rights tribunal panel, appeared before the standing committee he agreed that the tribunal should have membership from all walks of life. It would be similar to what we see happening across the judiciary. It is growing more and more representative of society all the time.

The committee has done its work and has done it very well. I commend its members for that work. Because of that direction I do not think we should support this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.