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?