Debates of Oct. 5th, 1995

Employment Equity Act

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Three important members of the Reform Party.

I think it is very important that the members of the Reform Party understand there are things that government can do and must do well. When they said in their minority report-

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assume that it is not customary to refer to the absence or the non-absence of members.

[The Speaker]

I did not hear anything about the absence or non-absence. The Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to address myself to the vast hordes of Reform members who are on the opposite benches. It is simply a function of education. There are times when I fall back into old habits of trying to say "let's learn together in this House".

When they put out in their minority report their opposition based on a false premise, one has to take issue with it. One wonders, as we found today in question period, whether some members of the House actually read the legislation we present. We heard today from members of the Bloc that they had not read the bill on HRD. We tabled it four months ago and they got around to raising questions four months later, which has something to do with a certain date at the end of October, I suppose.

Clearly Reform members have not read clause 6 of this bill, which I will read. It says "The obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons". With respect to the public sector, it requires that hiring or promotion be based on selection according to merit. In the report there are many references to merit being done away with and quotas being imposed, yet the legislation says the opposite.

Clause 33, which I know is way down the bill and takes at least five minutes to get to, reads: "The commission may not give a direction and no tribunal may make an order where that direction or order would impose a quota on an employer". Is that pretty clear, that no commission or tribunal can make any order imposing a quota?

Again, why does the Reform Party, in its members' speeches, its minority reports, in its public language, say that quotas are being imposed? Do they have a secret bill we do not know about? Have they written something we do not know about, which they are going to pop unsuspectingly on the Canadian public? It could be, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-64. It is important we understand that.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Tell them about the RCMP, Lloyd.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

He is the one who calls the RCMP all the time, not me.

How much clearer can we be? When we ensure that all deserving people have more chance, more opportunity to apply for a job, get training, get a promotion, does that not mean a better achievement of the merit principle?

When we ask companies to examine their own assumptions about the tangible and intangible qualities it takes to do a job, when we examine what it is we want from our workers, how we can improve their skills, how we can ensure that there are not false barriers based upon old habits and old wisdoms impeding the development of that human resource in the workplace, does that not also improve the achievement of merit?

The employment equity bill is about making merit work. It is real and demonstrable in a practical way in the workplace. It is about opening doors that have been closed for far too long and for far too many people. That is why I believe Canadians support this legislation. They know that our society will work better if everybody has a chance to work.

I would like to quote from a letter I received from a young woman who works in the construction industry. She has been having trouble keeping her job because only 2.4 per cent of construction workers are women. I should say by way of informa-

tion that we have established a special program in my department called Women in Trades and Technology, where we have put together a council of employers across Canada to specifically promote internships and apprenticeships for women in the trades and technology areas, where only two per cent or three per cent are represented.

This woman did not write to complain or to ask for special privileges. There was no special pleading. She simply wrote to urge me and members of this House to put an end to discrimination in her industry and other industries. She ended her letter by calling on all members of Parliament to pass Bill C-64. She said "When you review Bill C-64, think of my five-year-old niece, who wants to grow up to be a builder, just like me".

I invite all members of this House, on both sides of the House, to join in the spirit this young woman represented. She has asked us to be builders, to build something better, something more open, something fairer, so that all Canadians, men and women, those with certain disabilities, those with certain colours of skin, those with certain handicaps that they have faced over time, can all contribute to the building of this country. That is what we are all about.

I believe this legislation, Bill C-64, gives us a tool to be a good builder, all of us. I hope all members will support this bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, at third reading, on Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

As we have said many times before, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of employment equity. It also recognizes the importance of this legislation, which must absolutely be effective.

Let us look at the events which lead to this bill. In 1970, in the wake of the Royal commission on the status of women, the federal government set up its first affirmative action programs. However, it was not until 1984, following the report of the Commission on equality in employment, better known as the Abella commission, that the foundations for the current equity policies were laid. The Abella report emphasized the need for special measures to ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of one's gender, race, ethnic origin or handicap.

The current employment equity legislation, which was passed in 1986, applies to employers and crown corporations governed by federal regulations and employing at least 100 people. The act requires that employers improve job opportunities for designated groups, namely women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

The act also requires that employers eliminate rules and procedures which adversely affect members of these groups, and that employers take concrete action to increase the representation of these groups within their organization. The current provisions also provide for the development of a plan stating the objectives to be reached during a given year, or in subsequent years, as well as a timetable.

Moreover, employers must file an annual report to the Department of Human Resources Development providing all the information relating to the implementation of the act within their organization. That essentially sums up the current legislation on employment equity.

Bill C-64, which is now at third reading, completely replaces that act. The main amendments are as follows. The act will also apply to the federal public service. The elements that must be included in business plans will be better defined. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is now responsible for determining employers' compliance with some of the provisions. It has the power to investigate. An employment equity tribunal is also provided for.

The bill as it stands today by the government is an improved version. During the first debate on this bill 10 months ago, I denounced some of its flaws. I am happy to note that the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee succeeded in convincing some members to improve the bill.

Nor should we forget the amendments proposed by my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, some of which were accepted. Unfortunately, there were two with which the committee disagreed and to which I will get back in a moment.

Contrary to what my Reform colleagues claim, I think that a law on employment equity is both desirable and necessary. Let us listen to what Glenda Simms, President of the former Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, said when she appeared before the standing committee last February: "We have been defending since 1975 the idea that the Employment Equity Act is a way to achieve equality for women in the work place. Over the past decade, the extent to which women, as a group, are facing serious and systemic inequalities on the labour market, particularly in terms of compensation, working conditions and job access, is explained at length in many reports both within government and outside. Women are not evaluated on the basis of personal merit, but rather their race, their sex and whether or not they are disabled".

Consequently, women are overrepresented in lower paying positions. Approximately 60 per cent of all women to whom job equity applies have clerical jobs and they are severely underrepre-

sented in management positions. White male without disabilities still hold 78 per cent of management job in the public service.

About the impact of systemic discrimination against women, Ms. Simms said the following: "The cost of discrimination should not be underestimated. Ample proof has been given of the correlation between sex and poverty in Canada. Many studies conducted by the government confirm that women are poorer than men and that, among poor women, those who have disabilities, are immigrants or belong to visible minority groups, as well as native women, are the poorest".

It is not true to say, as my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Southwest and others suggested the day before last, that "it is reverse discrimination, that is means that one can get a job, be promoted or hired on the basis of physical characteristics instead of merit".

This reflects-please excuse my bluntness-a sexist and macho view of the situation.

It is a refusal to face reality, the everyday reality of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers, both women and men. I refer of course to those groups addressed by the bill: women, the disabled, visible minorities and aboriginal people.

This is the reality referred to by Ms. Simms and many other witnesses who came to represent their less privileged fellow workers.

A few figures clearly illustrate their demands. Statistics Canada indicates that in 1993 women working full time earned 72 per cent of what men earned. This is even the way it is at the present time in the federal public service, where women are earning 72 per cent of what men are earning. I trust that rectification of this situation within the federal public service will not be long in coming.

The average income of immigrant women workers, however, was 54 per cent of what immigrant males were earning, and close to 80 per cent of disabled women had an annual income of less than $10 000. This is an alarming situation, therefore, and the way we must adjust our aim is to pass a law such as this. We are also aware that 75 per cent of the ten lowest paying jobs in Canada are occupied by women. According to the Council on the Status of Women, the proportion of women in the lowest paying jobs has increased four times more than their proportion in the best paying jobs. The explanation offered by the council is the division of work along gender lines, leading to an undervaluation of women's paid work, which naturally leads to salary inequities.

The women who organized the great march on Quebec City last spring were reminding us that this state of affairs, this inequality of earnings between men and women, compromises the economic security of women both now and when they retire. As for the other designated groups, we know from the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development itself that they are characterized by a serious underrepresentation of aboriginal and disabled persons and a concentration of members of these groups in the less well paying jobs. The situation is apparently particularly acute for aboriginal people, whether female or male. This is why we need employment equity legislation.

Not content to denigrate the very foundations of employment equity legislation, our friends in the Reform Party blithely deny the harsh reality experienced by our fellow Canadians in the designated groups. Two days ago, my colleague for Edmonton Southwest said: "The foundation is that somehow or other Canadians are a mean, regressive, racist, discriminating people. Canadians are nothing of the sort. We are not that. No such discrimination exists in the workplace". So they deny the problem.

"The workplace, particularly outside the federal government, is progressive. Industry leads. It is a totally unnecessary law". This is ostrich politics. We have to ask ourselves why a certain segment of the population refuses to acknowledge that their fellow citizens are victims of discrimination every day.

We have to ask ourselves if it is not because these people do not suffer the systemic discrimination repeatedly confirmed by studies in this area. As a general rule, white men do fairly well compared to other groups. So, contrary to what some people think, we as a society need a law promoting employment equity.

As I mentioned earlier, the existing legislation was lacking and needed improvement-hence the bill before us. In Quebec, women have a promise from government that a proactive bill on pay equity will be tabled soon. Under that bill, business will have to create a balanced mechanism for evaluating jobs, in order to identify those who are relatively underpaid. Business will then have a period of time to adjust salaries.

The following sentence in a document produced by the committee for the bread and roses march made it quite clear: "Whereas discrimination is not the exception but the rule and affects all female workers, the adoption of pro-active legislation is necessary". Reform members, if we go by their speeches, have no understanding of the situation in Quebec or of the kind of society we want to become. If they want to try their luck in Quebec, they will have to adjust their thinking to the situation in Quebec and consider the social values we want in our society.

Of course this was about wage equity, while the bill before the House is about employment equity. In fact, the two are closely related. In both cases, the purpose is to close the gap between men

and women, between white people and members of visible minorities, between persons with a disability and those who have none. It is about social justice and government policies that will help to deal with the problem.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois proposed two amendments which unfortunately were not accepted by the committee and which in our opinion would have improved the bill.

The first amendment concerns clause 14 of the bill and deals with the preparation of the employment equity plan. We would have preferred to see the plan prepared jointly by the employer and the employees. As the bill stands, the employer only has an obligation to consult with the representatives of the employees which, we feel, falls far short of being satisfactory.

Spokespersons for the National Association of Women and the Law also pointed out that opportunities for employees, their representatives and members of designated groups to participate in the development and implementation of employment equity plans were few and far between. We deplore their absence from this process.

We also suggested that the employment equity plan be posted in public areas in the workplace, for the purpose of informing employees.

Finally, we believe that it would certainly be in keeping with the intent of the legislation for the tribunal, consisting of three persons, to have at least one representative for workers and designated groups. I think it is essential that one of these persons should be designated to sit on the tribunal. The National Association of Women and the Law expressed its surprise that the bill did not contain a measure to that effect.

The association also recommended that both compliance officers and members of tribunals should be specialized in employment equity and represent designated groups.

This would be, to use a familiar phrase, putting your money where your mouth is.

The stakes are high, for women and for all designated groups. Ms. Simms, president of the now defunct Advisory Council on the Status of Women expressed it very well in her presentation when she said in concluding that the council encouraged the government to follow the recommendation to ensure that employment equity succeeded in giving women the opportunity, free of prejudice and sexism, to prove themselves on the labour market and, at the same time, to show that they have a right to dignity, respect and equity in our society. This is just as true for the other designated groups. What is good for women, is also good for aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. We must have this awareness.

I therefore invite the members of this House to support all measures of social justice that help reduce the gap between the most disadvantaged and the most affluent. It is unfortunate that we are still debating the passing of such legislation when, in my opinion, our energies would be better focused on implementing corrective measures to ensure that the target groups achieve equality one day and that discrimination becomes a thing of the past.

It should be our hope that everyone will have access to well paid work, that no one has to face discrimination and that working conditions are adjusted for certain people to enable them to grow in the workplace. We should also aim for equality of opportunity and employment equity.

In closing, I would like to ask the government how it will enforce such a law, which is praiseworthy of itself? Having participated in the Beijing conference, I know the government has announced that a strategy will be established to evaluate, according to the sexes, all policies to be made, department by department.

Therefore, with the new social program reform, which has not yet been announced but will probably be announced after the referendum, I would like to know whether the impact of such a strategy, of such a social program reform act, has been assessed and how this strategy will affect people. It seems to me this is only natural. We all know that, with the upcoming social program reform act, women, people with disabilities, members of visible minorities will be the ones who will have to pay for all the cuts to be made in the public service. So the bill is praiseworthy, but will the government's efforts be equal to this legislation?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the dissertations by my hon. colleagues opposite.

At the outset, I want to make it very clear on behalf of my party that we do not ascribe any negative motive to the Liberals for bringing this legislation forward. As a matter of fact, we think they probably in their heart of hearts think they are doing the right thing. We just think it is stupid, unnecessary and counterproductive.

We do not ascribe any motive that would be negative to them other than the fact that in their heart of hearts they wished they lived in a perfect world but we do not. We cannot make a perfect world through legislation. It might be possible to advance the world to perfection through education, but there are some things in life which just plain cannot be satisfied through legislation and this is one of them.

Regrettably, the underlying foundation of employment equity or affirmative action in our country presupposes that Canadians in some way or another are now, have been and will be a systemically

meanspirited lot of people who discriminate against others. That is not true. It is not the case.

Earlier this afternoon the hon. minister opposite made reference to members of the business community being in favour of employment equity and that those who came to the committee said so. When people are invited to make a submission before a committee on something like employment equity, what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to say that they do not believe in the notion of employment equity and that they would just as soon discriminate against people? That is just not the case.

Our country's business community is very progressive. It is way ahead of the government. As a matter of fact, the average business has never seen a visitor from the employment equity police for the legislation that is now in place. Most Canadians, including most Canadian businesses, do what they do out of enlightened self-interest. As I mentioned the other day, there is nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest; it gets the job done.

In my few minutes today I would like to try to rebut some of the arguments made in favour of affirmative action or employment equity and also to give a sense of what this legislation might mean as it gets its iron grip on Canadian society.

The most significant provision of Bill C-64 results in the legislated mandate of affirmative action for the federal public service, including the RCMP, the military, public security agencies, federally chartered businesses and any business of 100 or more employees that does business with the federal government. That is quite a collection of people. Imagine the number of equity police that will be required to police that to make sure it is working.

The nature of this proposed legislation is intrusive into the marketplace. Under the proposed legislation an employer is obliged to submit an employment equity compliance audit by an officer acting on behalf of the human rights commission.

Based on the results of such an audit, the Canadian Human Rights Commission may direct that an employer comply with the provisions of the Employment Equity Act. Failure to comply with such a directive renders an employer subject to a fine at the initiative of the minister responsible for the administration of the Employment Equity Act of up to $50,000. The responsible minister has not yet been determined but we assume it will be the minister of human resources.

It is important to note though that the term employment equity will be heard from the Liberal side and the Bloc, but you will hear members from this side using the term affirmative action. Liberals are slow to use the term affirmative action because that term is not particularly well regarded even by those who were purported to have been helped by affirmative action 30 or 40 years ago primarily in the United States.

In the last election in Ontario, the notion of affirmative action was roundly discarded when the New Democrats were thrown out of office by the Conservatives. They said in large part in their election mandate that they were going to get rid of the employment equity law.

That really causes one to wonder why the Liberal government opposite would introduce this legislation at this time. Giving credit where credit is due, the Liberals believe in their heart of hearts that what they are doing is the right thing, that they will go ahead regardless. Dam the torpedoes because the torpedoes surely will be in the water at the next election when they are trying to explain why they introduced reverse discrimination and codified it throughout the land.

Through this legislation the Liberals will have planted the seeds of resentment that will burn in the bellies of the thousands and thousands of people who will be denied opportunity that is rightly theirs. They will be denied that opportunity because there is a quota for others determined by race, by gender. People will look at that and ask: Is this a free country? Is this what is meant in article 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms where it explicitly states that all Canadians are equal regardless of race, creed or gender? Of course the next paragraph says, except for designated groups, which then allows legislation of this type to come forward.

The foundation for the notion of affirmative action versus employment equity was really made about 10 years ago by Judge Rosalie Abella. The royal commission recommended employment equity legislation rather than affirmative action legislation because affirmative action and the term affirmative action had been so widely discarded because it just plain does not work.

It is important to keep this in mind. You can dress this baby up any way you want but it does not matter what kind of cook you are, you cannot make mutton taste like lamb. If it is not lamb, it is never going to be lamb. You cannot dress it up in any way. It is a tough old bird that is not going to fly.

There is a suggestion from this side of the House that employment equity or affirmative action legislation really does involve social engineering and forced acceleration of the effects of demographic change. I am going to present an interesting set of statistics.

Canada's demographics are changing rapidly. The make-up and composition of this House is not representative of the changing demographics of our country today. If we look around us in the House, the vast majority of people representing constituencies of the Liberals, of the Bloc and of the Reform Party are white,

middle-age males. That is not our fault; it is changing. It is changing slowly, but it is changing.

According to the 1991 census, 9 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or over, or 1.9 million people were visible minorities. Of the 9 per cent or the 1.9 million people who were visible minorities in Canada, only 15 per cent were born in Canada. Very few of the visible minorities that live in Canada today were born in Canada. Thirty-five per cent of the visible minorities in our country have arrived since 1983. Sixty-seven per cent of all visible minorities in Canada have arrived since 1972.

In a relatively short period of time in the 130 years or so that Canada has been a nation, the changing demographics of our country in visible minorities has only really been apparent in the last 30 years. To suggest that there is systemic discrimination in our country is wrong. We have not had the chance to have systemic discrimination.

The demographic composition of employees at all levels in a country which is 128 years old cannot be radically changed as a result of demographic social change over 30 years, and most significantly within the last 12 years. These changes will occur, but it will take at least one or two generations, if allowed to occur without legislative compulsion. As I said before, if we look at the demographics of the House of Commons, we will see that is the case.

Attempting a statistical matching for equity purposes, that is, x per cent of a particular race means that x per cent of that race must be in an occupation for there to be equity, involves the unreasonable assumption that the extent of association to Canada and the extent of Canadian work experience are irrelevant to workforce entitlement or promotion considerations. Does it not make sense if people have been in Canada and have participated in the labour force that their participation rate and their advancement rate would be higher based on the amount of time they have been here or their familiarity with Canada?

That does not mention the fact that all of the government agencies covered by this bill and many private contractors are covered by unions in which people have problems moving up and out and being hired or fired based on the unions. It has nothing to do with management, it has to do with the union. It has to do with whether a person is in the door first.

Let us talk about goals and targets. Let us ask ourselves: Are goals targets and are they quotas by another name? Exception was taken to the fact that members on this side of the House referred to goals as being quotas. Under the Employment Equity Act an employer is not required to hire or promote unqualified persons. It says that right in the legislation and I acknowledge that. Employers are not required to hire or promote unqualified persons or to create new positions in the workforce. The Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot impose a quota on an employer where a quota is defined as a requirement to hire or promote a fixed or arbitrary number of persons during a given period.

However, the other shoe is about to drop. In circumstances where under-representation of designated groups has been identified, the employer is required to prepare a plan in which short term numerical goals for hiring and promotion of designated groups are established plus longer term goals for increasing the representation.

What a minute. Just a second. Hold it. Did I not just say the act says they cannot have quotas? Wait a minute, it does say they can establish numerical goals. But what is a numerical goal if not a quota?

If in the opinion of the human rights commission investigator an employer has not made reasonable efforts the employer can be fined $50,000. It sounds like a quota to me. If it looks like a quota, sounds like a quota, acts like a quota and the results of it are like a quota, the chances are it is a quota. It does not matter whether we call it employment equity; it is still affirmative action. It does not matter if we call it a goal or a numerical target. If it restricts the number and the access by number, it is a quota. That is all it can possibly be.

Just in case there is a possibility someone thinks that quotas are not already in force in the Government of Canada hiring practices, just try getting hired by the RCMP, as a constituent in Edmonton tried. Barry Ceminchuk who lives in Edmonton called me and said: "Please talk about my problem. I wanted to get a job with the RCMP. They will not even take my application". The RCMP will not even take it and he has done some digging.

This is information from the employment equity guide from the Department of Justice. Is that not amazing, there is an employment equity guide from the Department of Justice.

For those of you out there in television land, when the census comes next time and you are wondering why they are asking what race you are, all of a sudden the light will come on. The reason people want to know your race is so they can check out demographically whether or not the companies in the local areas are hiring enough people of the various races located in that geographic area. That is why that question is there.

This is from the Department of Justice, and we do not have quotas here folks, but we do have employment equity targets. In the spring of 1991 Treasury Board introduced a new target setting strategy as a means for achieving the equitable representation and distribution of designated group members in the department. The new strategy is flow based, which means that it focuses on an

equitable share of recruitment and promotions of designated groups.

It goes on to list the groups and then states what its non-quota quota goals are for women. For scientific and professional: recruitment, 43.8 per cent; promotions, 43.6 per cent. For administrative and foreign service: 39.9 per cent for recruitment and 66 per cent for promotions. If you happen to be a woman in the Department of Justice in an administrative or support position, you have it made, but you had better not be male because women are going to get 93 per cent of the promotions.

We hear clapping from the opposite side. It has nothing to do with whether they are the best qualified but they are going to get it because of their gender. That is absolutely wrong.

My daughter is a totally capable person in her own right. She just goes up and down a wall every time somebody thinks that she has got somewhere or she has a job because she is a woman, because of employment equity or affirmative action. She is an electrical engineer and works in a male dominated field. My daughter achieved what she achieved because she is a damn good electrical engineer. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is a damn good engineer. She just goes crazy when those feminists say she is a victim. She is not a victim.

In any event let us keep talking. Let us talk about qualified versus best qualified. The legislation says in clause 6 that an employer cannot be required to hire or promote unqualified persons. However, the other shoe drops. At the same time, an employer is not free to hire the best qualified as a matter of course. The concept of best qualified does not reflect systemic prejudices. Subjectivity in hiring is largely eliminated under this legislation. Attitudes cannot be legislated.

I am getting a fair amount of static from my friends opposite. They are most uncomfortable because they will soon be standing to justify this draconian legislation.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I am just as comfortable as I can be. You have no idea how comfortable I am.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

They are going to try to make this turkey look like a chicken and they are going to have one heck of a time doing it. I wish them well. When they take this boat in the next election, there are going to be torpedoes coming at them from every direction.

Part of me is saying that I cannot wait to see this legislation get off the ground because the government is going to have to live with it. It is like the dog that chases a car: What does he do with it when he catches it? My friends opposite are going to catch this car at the next election.

Let us talk about statistics and the employment equity legislation and the supposition that it is grounded on unreliable statistics. Much of this requires self-identification. The affirmative action police will go into a place of business and pass out a form to be filled out. People will be required to self-identify. Anybody who is going to try to get a job with the government now has to identify their race or whether they are part of a minority group. It is all part of the legislation.

The employment equity police are going to require people to identify themselves. I do not know if the House of Commons is trying it because it is such a progressive place or whether it is test legislation. At the time this was done there were 1,700 employees in the House of Commons. The response rate was 23 per cent and only 50 of those respondents identified themselves as belonging to a designated group.

People do not like to self-identify. As a matter of fact that was indicated in the Department of Justice paper I referred to a little earlier. It talked about the effectiveness of self-identification.

Let me quote from the Department of Justice employment equity guide: "The effectiveness of the self-identification process is questionable. Treasury Board is currently reviewing the process to improve it. There will always be a certain number of people who choose not to identify themselves as members of a target group for various reasons. One of the strongest reasons is the concern about being labelled a token employee and not seen as someone hired for their qualifications or because they have earned the position". This is from the Department of Justice.

Whoever drafted this legislation over in the Department of Justice must have been popping Tums all day. It must have been a long, hard day at work.

Interestingly, there was a 30 per cent increase in Canadians reporting a disability between the 1986 census and the 1991 census. We have to ask why in a five year period there would be a 30 per cent increase in the number of people reporting themselves as having a disability. Why has this identification occurred, particularly in view of the incentive to falsify self-identification surveys? I know that might sound kind of meanspirited but there is the potential for people to self-identify themselves one way or another in some of these surveys in order to gain an advantage in promotion or hiring.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Come on.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Now that might happen. Just imagine. There are people out there who might just say: "Gosh, how am I going to go about getting myself a job here? I know I have the same

qualifications as the vast majority of other people that are applying. How am I going to get a job? I know what I might have to do. I might have to self-identify myself into one of these groups".

This brings to mind an anomaly in the whole notion of visible minorities and disadvantaged groups. Based on statistics obtained from Statistics Canada we know that Japanese Canadians have among the highest incomes and the highest education levels of all Canadians, yet they would qualify under this legislation as a disadvantaged group. Figure that out. Does that make any sense?

There is deafening silence opposite. Give them a minute to think about it. We have a demographic group in our country that has the highest single average education, the highest single average income, but members of that group qualify as disadvantaged because of the colour of their skin.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

What is the story with visible minorities?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Tell us about visible minorities.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Hold it, let us go back one more. Let us talk about the Portuguese Canadians. Interestingly, Portuguese Canadians do not rank at the same income level as Japanese Canadians, but guess what? They are not visible minorities because their skin is not a different colour. They are curse of curses, shame of shames, white. Therefore, they do not qualify under the statute. Does that make any sense whatsoever? That is the fallacy of creating legislation in a free and democratic society based on race, colour, creed or gender. There is no place for it.

What we should be doing in our society is making sure the human rights commission works so that when people are discriminated against for any reason, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their colour, regardless of their gender, they have a place to go.

Let us talk about useless legislation in our country. Right here in the precincts of Parliament Hill there is 10 years and $100 million of reconstruction going on. A woman was working on the construction site but she was fired because she was a woman and one of the men did not want to be working with her. She went to the human rights commission and was turned around and sent to the provincial human rights commission.

If we want to do something, we should get our act together and get a human rights commission with teeth. We should get some semblance of uniformity between human rights laws federally, provincially, municipally and human rights legislation in the workplace.

We could be doing something worthwhile. If somebody is discriminated against in this country, what do they do? They are absolutely lost. They go to these commissions and get in line. There is a line-up that takes six months to a year to get through. That is where we should be putting our effort. We could be educating people about why it is wrong to discriminate for any reason. We do not have to legislate this sort of thing.

Then we have to make sure that people who are discriminated against for any reason have redress. They presently have no redress. It is not criminal. People can discriminate against anybody they want to; it is not a criminal offence. What one has to do is go through hoops in order to get some kind of satisfaction. We should be making that easy instead of doing this. It is ridiculous.

Since the human rights commission is the agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing this, how much money is going to the commission to enable it to do the job? What is being done to enable Mr. Yalden and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do the job? Make a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission today and see how long it takes to get satisfaction. Dump this responsibility on it and how long is it going to take to get from point A to point B?

Let us think about it. Think about the last bit of employment equity legislation that came through the House and see what has been done anywhere in the country to ensure that it has been done. Absolutely nothing has been done. What happens when persons who feel they have been discriminated against go to the human rights commission? They grow barnacles. Nothing happens there. Therefore, what do we do? We bring in more legislation to do nothing. The Liberals are just giving lip service so that they can further consolidate their position by saying: "We looked after all of these target groups. We are their great benefactors". The Liberals are not their great benefactors.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

You are.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Members opposite say, pejoratively I suspect, that I am. Mr. Speaker, I take that as a compliment because damned right I am. I will address these things honestly and through the front door. I will not do it sliding in the back door.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I have never come in the back door in my life.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Members opposite are heckling me. I am having trouble not laughing because some of their heckles are fairly funny. People listening to their televisions cannot hear what they are saying so I will have to try to ignore them.

I am going to finish my dissertation with a challenge to the Liberals opposite. They control everything in this House. They have a majority. If they do not want something to happen it is not going to happen. As a matter of fact it is not really the Liberals, it is the cabinet. It may not even be the cabinet, it might be the Prime Minister's office. It might not even be the Prime Minister's office, it might be one or two people trying to figure out how they can keep him elected.

However, whoever it is that pulls the strings over there, I offer those people a challenge: extend employment equity legislation to

the House of Commons. Why is the House of Commons excluded from this legislation?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It works for me.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Are you in favour?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

The member opposite says to extend this. I offer them a challenge: extend employment equity legislation to the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lévis-government subsidies; the hon. member for Halifax West-foreign affairs.

We shall now proceed to the next stage of debate, which will allow the hon. members a maximum of 20 minutes to speak, subject to a 10 minute period for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the time to debate my colleague point by point. It may not be allowed, but I will do it at committee where the member sits.

As the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, I rise today to bring the sentiments of my constituents to the House during third reading debate of Bill C-64. Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, reflects the soul of our nation. It reflects our shared value of equality. It reflects our humility to recognize the presence of inequities. It reflects our ingenuity as a people to craft solutions to problems.

Systemic discrimination remains an endemic problem, a national malady, a barrier to equality in employment. In the 1960s discrimination in employment was seen as a human relations problem, the result of malice and intentional bias. Thus human rights legislation was enacted, but proved ineffective in addressing the overall problem. That is what the Reform Party would like us to do, retreat from our progress.

Pilot affirmative action programs on a voluntary basis were tested in the 1980s but they failed to achieve the desired results. Women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities continued to be disadvantaged, experiencing higher than average unemployment rates and, if employed, were often concentrated in low paying occupations and were not represented in upper management.

It soon became apparent to the national leadership of the day that discrimination resulted not only from intentional bias, but also from outdated hiring practices and systems. In other words, a seemingly unprejudicial employment policy had an adverse impact on job opportunities for certain individuals and groups because of their race, gender, colour and disability. The phrase systemic discrimination refers to this type of unintentional barrier to equality.

The persistence of this problem stirred the national consciousness at a time when a new era was dawning in Canada. In 1982 the Canadian Constitution was repatriated and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was born.

Section 15, paragraph 1 of the charter speaks of the equality of Canadians before and under the law, in benefits and in protection. What a powerful national statement on equality, one in which we can all take pride.

No doubt conscious of the presence of unintentional bias in the workplace and no doubt aware of the need to eradicate it, the framers of the charter saw to it that any future Canadian government would not be handicapped in drafting programs to treat this societal ailment.

Hence, the addition of paragraph 2 to section 15. This additional paragraph gives government the authority to design programs aimed at creating an equal and level playing field for those disadvantaged in society. It gives Parliament the authority to enact laws aimed at achieving equality, not preference, not superiority, in employment for the disadvantaged groups, laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

These two paragraphs in one section of the charter reflect Canadian ingenuity, reflect our genuine pursuit of equality and reflect our national foresight in social legislation. This section allows Canada to acknowledge, respect and accommodate the differences among her people.

Equality in the workplace does not and cannot be allowed to mean only identical treatment for all. Equality includes improving the condition of disadvantaged people or groups, which sometimes requires treating them differently to ensure equality. Thus there is maternity leave for women, to cite one example, but not for men.

Seizing on this national foresight now entrenched in the charter of rights and freedoms and wanting to redress systemic discrimination, the Liberal government of the day soon struck the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. Chaired by Justice Rosalie Abella, the commission issued its landmark report, Equality in Employment, in 1984. It confirmed that discriminatory practices, intentional or not, yielded the same outcome: low rank, low pay or no job at all.

It confirmed that certain systems and practices unwittingly may have adverse effects on certain groups in our society. Therefore it prescribed a system based approach to remedy the situation. This ultimately led to the enactment of the current Employment Equity

Act in 1986. This law has helped advance equity in employment, but not far enough.

The current federal government knew this before it took office in October 1993. It therefore sought and was given the mandate by the Canadian people to extend coverage of the act to the federal public sector and to include practical enforcement mechanisms. The government wanted to fulfil this mandate in a fashion that will further advance equality in the workplace without adding an onerous burden on employers and businesses.

Bill C-64, tabled in the House last December 12 and amended in committee and at report stage fulfils our national agenda. I was privileged earlier this year to chair the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons which conducted a full review of employment equity and obtained input from Canadians from coast to coast.

We heard from 52 associations and individuals and received 18 written submissions. The views of employers, labour organizations, designated group organizations and many interested Canadians were fairly represented in the evidence before the committee.

I am honoured to share with my colleagues in the House, my constituents and other fellow Canadians some of what we heard from witnesses.

Says the Congress of the Assembly of First Nations Chief Mercredi: "Although a lot of times Canada is presented as a nation that believes in equality of opportunity, when you really undress the country there is no equality there for aboriginal people".

Says the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: "We point out the high participation rate in the workforce of our people to stress that aboriginal people want to work but the structure of the Canadian economy seems to leave them on the outside looking in".

From the National Association of Women and the Law: "A rather bleak picture of the employment and economic situation of women is evident at a glance. In general, women occupy most of the short term jobs and are clustered in low paying services and administrative support work positions".

Says the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a coalition of some 37 national ethnic groups around the country: "The reality now is the visible minority population labour force is under utilized. That speaks to the economy of Canada and to the future of our country".

From the Canadian Paraplegic Association: "Clearly for people with disabilities there are still numerous barriers to employment-until more attention is paid to education, training and skill development for persons with disabilities, reasonable representation in the Canadian work force will continue to be an illusion".

Clearly in this body of evidence, only a sample of many, we can see the plight of disadvantaged groups.

From the Canadian Labour Congress: "By ensuring the diversity of the Canadian population is reflected in all employment areas under federal jurisdiction, the Government of Canada is creating an enriched work environment".

Says the Canadian Security Establishment: "I am pleased to advise that the establishment feels it can comply with the requirements of the bill without special consideration".

Says the RCMP: "Under the recruiting process, what we would do is hire the best and highest rated persons from all groups" in compliance still with the Employment Equity Act.

Says the CRTC: "If the ultimate goal was to sensitize people so they would do these intelligent things instinctively-then we are definitely going in that direction".

From the Canadian Bankers Association: "Canada's banks, and I speak most particularly for the six major banks, have been committed to employment equity objectives since the current act was passed in 1986. We think employment equity not only has had a positive impact on the way our organizations manage their work forces but also it has proven good for business.

Let me quote from Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: "The idea then in setting numerical goals is not to play catch up. You do not have to ask to get to the same balance as the rest of the community. You set the goals in order to pressure the employers not to discriminate. That is the objective of the setting of the goals. You choose a numerical target that would accord with how many the employer would get if he recruited vigorously, set fair job standards, and at the end of the day did not discriminate improperly". That is from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association leadership.

The chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, stated:

-let me make it clear that employment equity is not about quotas. A quota is an arbitrary number of positions in the workforce that must be filled regardless of whether qualified candidates exist for the jobs.

I hope these testimonials will convince even the doubting Thomases from across the floor that the disadvantaged groups, their advocates and civil libertarians of renown are not the only supporters of Bill C-64. Employers from all sectors equally praise the bill. They recognize that equity in employment enhances productivity and business and inspires initiative and creativity.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has already refuted the myth the Reform Party wanted to propagate about qualifications, merit and quotas. Those issues have been dealt with

by the bill. For the sake of time I refer the hon. member opposite to the bill to see for himself his arguments are flawed.

During debate he told us he would object to census taking because it would ask for the individual's race. I am not afraid and I am not ashamed of my race. I am not ashamed of my heritage.

If he is really concerned that Canadians from the Portuguese community are now not covered under the act, that is true. If they are determined disadvantaged, then they will be given programs by the government. That is one beauty of having this type of census, so that we can get the facts and figures we need to formulate good, sensitive legislation which will answer the needs of Canadians.

I repeat the bill is not about redressing the past mistakes of history. It is about not wanting the past mistakes of history to be repeated on our present and future generations.

I heard earlier in the debate about wanting to hire the best qualified. I believe the Reform Party would be surprised at one of the witnesses from the Manitoba Telephone System, Ms. Katawne, director:

I would suggest that those people who believe it is a highly scientific art to determine who the best qualified person is are dreaming. They are in la-la land. That is not what happens on a selection committee.

We need an employment equity act.

In addition to making several clause by clause amendments to the bill, our committee issued a separate narrative report entitled "Employment Equity: A Commitment to Merit". I suggest that members who object to the bill give it careful study. I hope at that time they will have a change of mind and a change of heart. The report reflects the committee's confidence that Canada's new employment equity law will ensure the pre-eminence of merit and the elimination of systemic discrimination in employment practices.

What we have in the bill is a win-win situation for employers and employees alike. The report and the bill reflect the uniqueness of Canada as a leader among nations, committed to excellence in human endeavour and profoundly committed to social justice in general and to employment equity in particular.

Chairing the national hearings on Bill C-64 was a very meaningful experience for yours truly. It reconfirmed for me why I am so proud to be a Canadian.

Let me close with something I will always carry with me from my time as chair of the committee that studied this bill. It is a letter from the Filipino Technical Professional Association of Manitoba, an ethnic community to which I proudly belong.

The association stated that its members were proud of the efforts of the Canadian government to show the world that we as a society care about our citizens' human rights and shared the pride that the United Nations recognized Canada as the number one country in the world in which to live.

It emphasized there are already a lot of skilled immigrants and new citizens in Canada unable to get a job in their respective fields of training and experience because their professional credentials and training are not systematically given recognition. There is not even an orderly process for accreditation. Employers in a lot of cases insist on Canadian experience which also closes a lot of doors for employment. To the members of the association this amounts to no less than systemic discrimination.

I can certainly agree with its view that it is very distressing and undignified for a person to be systematically prohibited from practising his or her chosen career which he or she spent a lot of years mastering.

It recognizes, as I do, that employment equity may be one way of dealing with this problem, but again this will not work if systemic barriers are not dealt with.

Working together we can carry on this country's proud tradition of championing equality, creating opportunity and building a better country for us all. Employment equity is Canada's commitment to merit to social justice, a framework for awareness, a search for inclusion, a win-win for all. Canada has a duty to oblige.

I am proud to be part of a government that has taken the leadership. I therefore urge all hon. members from across the floor in the Chamber to join together and vote in favour of Bill C-64.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the speeches regarding Bill C-64. I am also finding myself agreeing not with the bill but with a lot of statements, particularly from the last speaker on the need to work on equality. Equality is essential. We want that. Everybody in Canada wants that.

I find it a little discouraging, however, when we come to talking about wanting equality. We want all to be Canadians. We want equality. That is what everybody wants.

Now we come to the time when we will have to ask the questions that may differentiate between equality and non-equality. That goes back to something talked about during the election. It was talked about by a lot of people who did not like hyphenated Canadians. They thought how great it would be if we could only come to the day when we can be Canadians and we do not have to be French-Canadian, Japanese-Canadian, aboriginal-Canadian, Colorado-Canadian, Irish-Canadian or whatever. They would really like

to see that disappear. That message was loud and clear. Every member in the House has heard that.

I think people would agree that is what we would like to see. All of a sudden we see a piece of legislation coming out prior to a census asking "what is your race?" I have already talked to a lot of people who are concerned about that. They wonder what will happen if they write Canadian. These people could write hyphenated Canadian because they are not the same as me.

People in my riding of a different ethic background are asking what they are supposed to write. A good friend of mine, a sheet metalist, asked: "Am I supposed to write African-Canadian because I am black?" He refuses to do that because he was born a Canadian. He said he will write Canadian and so will his kids. I admire that kind of attitude. There is a perfect example of an individual who would like to work toward being considered equal. Government legislation is requiring him to declare otherwise.

My colleague said the legislation is stupid. That is why it is stupid. It is forcing a lot of people to declare they are not Canadian because of a hyphen. They do not want to do that.

A lot of business people have told me they have practised this kind of legislation all their lives. The last thing they want to be is discriminatory against anyone. Everybody in the House can go to their ridings and talk to entrepreneurs of all kinds who have practised this kind of thing.

Of the 30 years I have been in Canada, 20 were spent in a supervisory position in which I had to hire people. On a number of occasions we made certain we did not mistreat anyone on the basis of gender, race, et cetera.

I recall several teachers who came from all walks of life I was involved in hiring who were excellent. It was long enough ago that we did not think about colour. We did not think about anything but their qualifications and their ability to perform. Now we are to force those same businesses that have those hiring practices to take into consideration colour, race and gender.

Here we go again. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who are up to their eyebrows in taxes and are having one heck of a time making ends meet. The biggest reason is government got into everything imaginable and interfered constantly with all the different regulations. Businesses have been made to become tax collectors through GST and other forms of taxes, which causes business to add costs and hire people to do the work for the government. Now we are to present them with more legislation.

I think all entrepreneurs all across the country of all races are just about fed up. They are liable to say to my friends across the way: "You blew it. What we do not need is more government involvement. We are grown individuals. We are intelligent. We are Canadian. We will manage our own affairs, thank you. Stay out, butt out, and get out of our lives".

No, for 30 years I seen that the government knows better. The government knows what is good for Canadians, so it has to make sure it gets in there, gets involved and starts forcing things to happen that have probably been happening all along. If they have not been happening we have a mechanism to make certain that people are punished when they do break the law by being discriminatory. We have that. It is called the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No, the government knows better.

This has been the practice for how long? Remember the metric system? Not many people wanted it, but the government gave it to them whether they wanted it or not. Remember the language law? A whole pile of people did not want it, but the government gave it to them whether they wanted it or not.

Let us go back to just recently. Consider the GST. It could not have been more obvious. People did not want it, but we have it.