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to the national leadership of the day that discrimination resulted not only from intentional bias, but also from outdated hiring practices and systems.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.