moved that Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, as the House leader said a few minutes ago, this is a very important legislative initiative by the government.
In introducing it on third reading, I take the opportunity to thank several colleagues in the House. As members will recall, we introduced the bill with something of a legislative experiment. Rather than going to the normal first and second readings, we introduced it after the first reading so that a legislative committee would have the full opportunity to actually shape the bill. In this way it would not simply be a matter of responding to a series of government propositions but would actually take a major role in defining and designing the elements it felt would be most important.
I thank the members of the committee on human rights and disabled people for their enormous amount of work, the number of hearings and the amount of time they have given. That applies to members on all sides of the House.
I also give my appreciation to the Secretary of State for Youth and Training and to my parliamentary secretary who have both worked very diligently in making sure the bill was again effectively presented to the House. At report stage we were able to get, as I see from Hansard , a very effective debate and response.
A good sign of the way that worked is when the opposition party presented amendments which improved the bill and we were prepared to accept those amendments and work with them so the bill would be a better piece of work. I compliment those members who have worked so hard on this legislation.
Bill C-64 has one fundamental purpose, to remove the systemic barriers that prevent people from going to work. We can put it all together in one sentence but since I have 30 minutes I will take more to elaborate.
What we really mean is that over the years practices, attitudes and conventional habits have built up in a wide variety of workplaces which have prevented people from using their God given talents and abilities not because of their merit but because of some label attached to them.
I am not referring to outright bigotry or discrimination but the kind of informal practices and rules that develop over the years, over generations, that simply build up a series of handicaps,
barriers and obstacles which prevents people in the workplace to get their full rights to participate.
Numbers of women, aboriginal people, disabled people and visible minorities have been denied equal open access to fully develop and explore their potentials in the workplace.
Ten years ago I had the privilege of establishing the Abella royal commission, headed by Judge Rosalie Abella from the court of Ontario, to look into this large question of systemic discrimination in the workplace. Justice Abella tabled a very historic report. Unfortunately by the time the report was tabled the people of Canada had decided in their own good wisdom to send me and a number of my colleagues on an extended sabbatical on the other side of the House. Therefore I was not in a position to fully implement those recommendations. It was up to the previous government to implement the recommendations of the Abella commission.
It brought in the Employment Equity Act which passed in 1986. It required employers in the federal jurisdiction that employ over 100 people to implement employment equity and to report on their progress.
If we look at the original Employment Equity Act, while it was full of wonderful language and high sounding objectives and phrases, it lacked some very major components. It was a form of legislated volunteerism. There was no enforcement. It was simply a good wish list of things people were allowed to do.
Therefore when it came time when we wanted employers to take positive steps to improve the access and openness of the workplace and they refused, there was nothing to be done. As a result there have been over the years a number of incidents in which employment discrimination has continued to prevail.
The other major flaw in the 1986 legislation is it did not apply to government. It was the classic case of do what we say, not do what we do.
It was in recognition of those two major flaws of the original bill that in the red book we put forward to the electorate in 1993 we committed ourselves to making major changes in the Employment Equity Act.
The legislation before us today on final reading is designed to meet those two major omissions. It is to fulfil the commitment we gave to the Canadian people in 1993 when they gave us a mandate to implement it. It is to give the Employment Equity Act some authority to carry out measures to reduce discrimination and to make it applicable to the federal government in its own workplace.
The bill increases the authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct an audit of public and private sector employees to ensure they are in compliance with the principle of employment equity.
It also provides that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, when needed, can in effect transform itself into an employment equity tribunal to guarantee that the legislation respects the rights of all Canadians regardless of whether they are employees or employers. There is a right of appeal.
This bill will have a positive impact on Quebec. More than 150 employers and approximately 350,000 employees will be affected by this initiative.
Those Quebecers will be entitled to a stronger system, with the human rights commission and a tribunal if necessary to ensure that employment equity is being implemented.
As well, application of employment equity measures within the public service will be fairer. It will give women, the disabled and other designated groups equity in employment, training or promotion. I feel that this represents a proper response to the demands of Quebec women and the needs of the disabled, aboriginal people and visible minorities.
It is my belief that the bill demonstrates the commitment of the federal government to take progressive measures for Canadians and for Quebecers.
Despite some of the comments concerning the bill, it is not about quotas. Let me make that very clear. That language was used in debate yesterday. It is not about quotas. In fact the legislation specifically prohibits quotas. Anybody who attempts to insert the notion that we are following in some cases the example of the legislation the Americans introduced 20 or 30 years ago is not being fair or straightforward when the word quotas is used since the act specifically prohibits them.
Neither is the bill about reducing qualifications to allow more non-qualified people to enter the workforce. It is a bill about lowering barriers, not lowering standards. That is the basic purpose of the bill.
We are attempting with this legislation to make sure the Canadian workplace fully reflects the richness and diversity of our population, that all individuals will have an equal chance of being considered for a job, a promotion or a chance to improve their specific place and status in the workplace.
The bill is not about replacing the merit principle with something else, far from it. I make the case it strengthens the merit principle by making sure in no uncertain terms that everybody who has merit will not be overlooked. Over the years people with enormous qualification, with enormous merit, with enormous sense of ambition and motivation never had the chance to fulfil that potential because in the workplace have been obstacles, barriers,
filters and screens that oftentimes have been built up without people noticing they were there.
Sometimes qualifications were based on size. Sometimes qualifications were based on saying that women for example could not do certain physical tasks even though it had never been proven. Yet in the last few years in police forces, the armed forces and fire prevention forces women and men have been shown to be equally capable of carrying out the entire multitude of tasks required in those dangerous occupations.
Equity in the workplace means a better workplace. Study after study show that those companies that introduce equity as a fundamental principle in human resource planning become better companies; more productive, more competitive, more efficient, more effective.
I listened with some interest and read in Hansard some of the comments from members of the Reform Party about the legislation. I suppose if I were to summarize, and I do it with great hesitation because I do not want to put words in the mouth of the hon. member, but it basically says, let the market decide. Let it choose who it wants to use and what is best for it.
Some progress has been made. Some companies have moved forward and I give them full credit. However I say to members of the Reform Party that more is needed. Where we are now is not enough. I want to quote to members a couple of interesting comments. There are times when they may be tempted not to take my word as gospel, but let me try on them the United Nations report on development.
It says, and I quote from this year's report: "The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality of opportunity". The market can do some things wonderfully well. It can make products, deliver services, make a profit, generate growth and jobs. However it is not very good when it comes to ensuring there is full equality of opportunity for everybody. That is why we have government: to provide a balance and make sure there are some rules, make sure that everybody is treated fairly.
The happy consequence of being a Canadian is that we have always found a nice balance between the public service consideration and the market consideration, that we find a way of working the two in tandem. I believe the legislation in Bill C-64 is a good example of that.
To make the point further, I want to quote from the Business Council of British Columbia, which is made up of senior business representatives from throughout the province: "Employers alone cannot achieve employment equity. Employers want to be part of the solution in partnership with government, unions, employee representatives, educational institutions and designated group organizations". When speaking, they used a very important word, partnership, a partnership to achieve equality. If I had to put a label on this bill I would say that is what it is about; partnership to achieve equality in the workplace.
The reality faced by many women, members of visible minority groups, aboriginal peoples, those with disabilities is not the reality of the average white male when it comes to employment and earnings. We have been a privileged group for generations. As a result, other members of society have fallen behind.
Fifty-one per cent of women are employed in sales, clerical work and service positions as compared to 20 per cent of males. Women earn only two-thirds of what men earn, even holding education as a constant.
Everyone in the House, I am sure, was cheered by the recent United Nations development index which put Canada number one in the world on matters of literacy, training and education, investment in people and quality of life. But when gender is factored into the equation we fall to number nine. It simply shows that something is wrong. This bill is designed to correct that.
I heard comments in the debate yesterday about visible minorities and that maybe they should not be included. Again, the facts counter that because the visible minority group, which on average has a higher education than the average Canadian, makes close to $10,000 less. The correlation in that should tell us something. The workplace is not being fair, open and accessible.
We hear every day the eloquent words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of the plight of First Nations people whose levels of unemployment are sometimes 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent and whose average income is less than $10,000, which is one-fourth of what the average Canadian makes.
An article in today's Globe and Mail is headlined: Canadian business chided for ignoring native market''. Ms. Pamela Sloan is a principal in the Toronto consulting firm of Hill Sloan, which just published a report on corporate aboriginal relations. The article states that the public and private sectors have made successful attempts but it is not enough. She says to the business community:You should introduce measures of equity because it makes good business sense to do it''.
It was interesting to hear as we have gone through this debate how broadly recognized that fundamental fact is. Canadians have come to understand, whether they are in the public or private sectors, the need to address the systemic exclusion of individuals on the basis of gender, race or physical condition from the opportunities to grow, contribute and develop. They understand
that this bill is an attempt to create a more level playing field for all Canadians.
I want to cite one statement which was made in the House. In a sense this gentleman is an officer of Parliament. We have entrusted to him the responsibility of overseeing human rights issues across Canada. That individual is Mr. Max Yalden. When challenged by certain members that this bill somehow is reverse discrimination and works against the interest of males, Mr. Yalden said that "far from falling behind, able-bodied males appear to be getting more than their proportionate share of hiring. Such data hardly convey a convincing portrait of reverse discrimination".
This bill does not take away from some people to give to others, it simply opens it up for all. It ensures that there is fair and equitable treatment.
We should discard the mythology. It is time to get rid of further divisions by somehow putting over here the plight of a male versus the plight of everybody else. We are all engaged in the enormous task of ensuring employment for all Canadians. The workplace is going through a transformation unlike any it has gone through in the history of human kind. With new technology, global competition and varieties of change, it is tough out there. The only way to succeed is to make the workplace and the job market equally accessible to everyone so all those talents will be put to work. One group should not be put on the sidelines and treated differently.
When people ask: How do we succeed as a country? How do we meet the challenge of a new workplace and avoid the phobia and fear which the Jeremy Rifkins are talking about? This is one of the answers. I sincerely believe that in today's age the key ingredient which really makes this country tick is its human resources. I may be biased because my department is named human resources, but I feel privileged to be given that responsibility. I see it as such an important element in making this country work. That means everybody has to work-not 50 per cent of the population, not 75 per cent, but everybody has to be given the chance to liberate their talent, to free up their creative potential, to give full open choice for them to make the kind of contribution they can make in the workplace.
I will digress for a second, if I might. A few days ago I was asked a question by the member from Regina about the statistics that were tabled last week by StatsCanada on the falling income of Canadian families. It is worth repeating. It pointed out that increasingly the falling income is a product of the increasing lack of participation of women in the workplace, single mothers in the workplace. In fact over the last several years that participation rate has dropped by almost 15 per cent. That is one of the most significant causes of the falling income of the Canadian family, in particular families headed by women.
We as a government are trying to turn around and devote our efforts to changing the basic structures to prevent that kind of decline. We are looking at a serious initiative on child care, trying to work with provinces and aboriginal groups. We are rewriting our employment legislation to make it more available for women coming back into the workplace to get the tools they need. We are looking at how we can better support young people to get back into the workplace.
That is the kind of response to our evolution, which is not to throw up our hands in despair, not to retreat into the den wardens of the past and try to hang on to the shibboleths of 30 or 40 years ago, but to try to say we can do it, we can make a difference, we can take initiatives and we can pass a law like Bill C-64. That is what we are all about.
There is an impression being left in this debate that somehow this is working against the interests of the private sector and that private enterprise is going rise up in revolt if this bill passes.
If we look at statements made before the committee that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North very ably chaired, look at the organizations that have supported this bill. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told the committee that they were convinced that employment equity is actually value added. These companies told the committee that they had discovered that diversity pays a major dividend. It does not cost them money, it makes them money. It gives them improved access to a greater number of highly qualified personnel to choose from. That is what employment equity is about.
Why do we go off running after rabbit tracks and trying to create smokescreens and trying to create a sense that somehow there is this widespread apprehension? It is even interesting to point out that when we look at the debate that was generated in Ontario during the campaign about the impact of employment equity, most of the employers in Ontario said they want the bill. Don't get trapped by some ideology. Don't get trapped into imported arguments that are taken from some fundamentalist group in the southern United States thinks employment equity is next to the devil. Our business groups are saying-
