Debates of Oct. 6th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Lower Churchill Development Corporation

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1994 annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.

Committees Of The House

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-90, the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 89th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which deals with the list of associate committee members.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this 89th report later this day.

Law Commission Of Canada Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 89th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present three petitions.

In the first petition the petitioners are asking that Parliament take steps to keep BGH out of Canada by legislating a moratorium or stoppage on BGH use and sale until the year 2000 and by examining the outstanding health and economic questions through an independent and transparent review.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray and request that Parliament rescind mandatory release legislation where violent offenders are involved; that Parliament ensure all information on violent offenders, including prior offences and refusal to enroll in treatment programs, is provided to those making decisions on release or parole; and that Parliament ensure all violent offenders will be separated from society until it can be proven that they will not reoffend.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are requesting that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and upholds the Supreme Court of Canada decision on September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition which calls on Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I am pleased to present the petition on behalf of these constituents.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and passed.

Employment Equity Act

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my comments today on Bill C-64 I want to focus on one important point. This employment equity legislation is a Canadian answer to a Canadian reality.

That Canadian reality is that persons in designated groups are not doing as well as they should in our labour force, given their qualifications.

That Canadian reality is that many instances of systemic discrimination can still be found.

I refer to a study released only last week by Simon Fraser University which states very clearly that male immigrants who are members of a visible minority earn 15 per cent less than white males born in Canada with the same education, in the same industry and in the same city.

We have heard a lot of debate on Bill C-64 that seems to deny that there is a problem, that action is necessary and that leadership by the Government of Canada is necessary. While it is a lot less nasty, to quote the same study, white immigrants still earn 2 per cent less than native born Canadians.

The figures become quite substantial. Let me quote: "Mean earnings of immigrant male members of visible minorities were down 22.6 per cent from those of Canadian born white males".

We could talk about each of the designated groups and make it clear that in the private and public sectors being well qualified is not enough if a person happens to be a member of a visible

minority, a woman, an aboriginal or a person with a disability. Those things work against them. They seem to cloud perception of their ability to do the job and to take on more senior responsibilities. It happens throughout every sector of the economy.

Let me come back to the Canadian reality. The Canadian reality is that our citizens want and deserve a country that breaks down these barriers to success. Two years ago that is what our country offered to Canadians and ever since we have been living up to our commitment.

Let me go back to the red book. It offered a vision of Canada with the economic strength it deserves and the social strength that draws us together as a community. At the beginning of the red book, the man whom Canadians chose as their Prime Minister and whom they continue to support wrote:

The result is a Liberal plan for Canada firmly anchored in the principle that governing is about people, and that government must be judged by its effectiveness in promoting human dignity, justice, fairness, and opportunity. This is our approach, and this election is about presenting that choice to Canadians.

Our platform was based on jobs and growth that would enrich everyone. We understood that people have expectations for their society, not just for their own wallets. That was why one of our commitments was a stronger employment equity act. We were determined that the federal government should do what it could to ensure that Canadians have a fair opportunity to get ahead in life. It draws on the willingness of employers to take a hard look at old practices and to move to a workplace that welcomes the talents of all our citizens.

Quite simply, this bill is about identifying and knocking over barriers that keep some people on the outside looking in or on the bottom looking up. It rests in the best tradition of opening the doors to full participation in Canadian society for all our citizens with all their diversity.

That puts the members of the Reform Party in a bit of a bind as they debate Bill C-64.

They know that incompetent members of designated groups will not take over the workplace. They know that no arbitrary quotas will be imposed. They know that this bill takes into account the concerns voiced by small business. And they know that the bill is fair and reasonable.

They are reduced to appealing to the worst in people instead of to the best. They are reduced to philosophical musings that are irrelevant to the case before the House and worst case, individual stories pulled from the murky depths of the American right wing. They cannot even get the name of this process right in their efforts to score political points. They seem to believe that if they use the term affirmative action they can polarize the debate.

One of the most destructive things that can be done in a society or in a Parliament is to polarize the debate, to pit one group against another, rather than to build ties and mutual respect among us.

If they want to talk about the American system, let us look at the record there and then let us compare it to what the government wants to do in this bill so that Canadians, despite the Reform Party members, will know the difference between the American system and ours.

Some 30 years ago the United States began to come to grips with the impact of centuries of racial discrimination. By 1970 Richard Nixon brought in the first affirmative action policies for the U.S. government. Let me remind my hon. friends that Richard Nixon would never be called a bleeding heart, but he did what he knew was right at the time and what his society needed. Other governments, public and private institutions took similar steps.

As the New York Times noted recently, this process has yielded results. ``In the past 20 years, it said, a substantial number of black families have been able to climb the social and professional ladder. While positive action is not the only reason for this, it certainly played a major role''.

Has the American process been perfect? Has it been what we want to model ourselves on? Absolutely not. In some cases arbitrary approaches were imposed. There were decisions that struck those of us at a distance as odd and unfair. In response that American system too has evolved but they too know there is still much to do.

Ask anyone who watched the public reaction to the Simpson trial and to the ultimate verdict. Race is still an issue in American life. The right wing there and their junior auxiliary in the Reform Party here cannot wish it away.

I believe that Canada begins from a better starting point than the United States. We do not have a clean history when it comes to racism and discrimination but we do not have the same burden of history that the Americans do.

Nonetheless there are barriers still to the full participation of members of designated groups in the economy and therefore to their full participation in society. Creating opportunity through ensuring fairness is the point of Bill C-64. We have chosen a Canadian approach. We have been guided by what works.

I had to go back to the dictionary. After listening to the debate for several days, I was starting to question whether I really understood what the word equity means. This is the Employment Equity Act, not the employment special preference act, as the Reform would have us believe, not the employment discrimination

act, as Reform would have us believe. It is the Employment Equity Act.

Let me quote from the dictionary: equity; fairness. If one goes to the second definition, it says the application of the principles of justice. Equity; justice. Those are Canadian words. Those are words that Canadians have taken to their hearts and have identified now for decades as a fundamental of what this country is all about.

Let me go to the word equality: the state of being equal. It is not one better than the other, but equal. That too is a term that our society and our country has stood for not only at home but around this globe.

Our approach in the bill is founded on a human resources planning approach to workplace issues. It is founded on creating a climate that encourages diversity through real action, not empty rhetoric. It is founded on a compliance process that has been based on those best Canadian values of negotiation and co-operation.

It is founded on giving employers the tools, the information and the incentive to recognize the ability in everybody who comes forward and applies for employment, in everybody who is in their employ and is looking for opportunities to advance and to improve.

My colleagues on this side of the House have talked about how this system will work. We do not have to rely on speculation. This is not new legislation. With some minor changes in applying it to the public service, it is the same employment equity legislation that has been in place in Canada since 1987.

My colleagues have talked about employers who see the value in this legislation to do the right thing. These employers have spoken of the flexibility and realism that is the foundation of our approach.

I sat through weeks of hearings of the human rights committee where numerous employers' organizations came before us in support of the legislation. They were not in support of every detail of it. They asked for some changes and most have been made. Not every equity group approved of every detail in the legislation. They asked for some changes and some of those have been made.

In true Canadian spirit, we are trying to achieve a progressive goal for all Canadians, a goal that is good for our economy, good for our society and good for individuals within our Canadian society.

We have not, as always, done what everybody would have liked but we have reached the best accommodation possible of the many different interests involved.

We have taken a made in Canada approach to employment equity. Admittedly, there are problems, but we can find effective, sensible and user friendly ways of dealing with these problems. This means no quotas, no reverse discrimination and no arbitrary preferential treatment. This means creating a fair and rational workplace for all.

I ask the hon. members opposite to quit falling back on the tired slogans of American politics, to quit pretending that the Canadian way is the American way. It is not. Look to this country. Look to our reality. Look to a better future and more opportunity for all Canadians, not just the select few. Look to a solution that makes sense. That solution, I believe, is found in Bill C-64 and the continuation of employment equity in Canada.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just made her presentation spent some time talking about discrimination in Canada, saying that members of the Reform Party deny that there is discrimination. I do not think one Reform member of Parliament could be found who would deny that there is discrimination and that it is not a problem. I do not deny it and I do not think any of my colleagues would deny it.

If discrimination finds its way into the workplace, as members of the Reform Party have said, it should be dealt with in a tough manner. We do not tolerate it and we must not tolerate it.

The member also gave statistics to show that legislation is needed. I present a few statistics and ask the member to respond to them. These are from the 1994 employment equity report. The report said that 570,000 people are currently regulated by the present Employment Equity Act. The member spoke about this not being new legislation, that there is an Employment Equity Act in place. Of this number 45.6 per cent are women. In the Canadian workforce about 45.9 per cent are female. The difference between those in the employment equity program and those outside is .3 per cent.

In total, women occupy 47 per cent of government jobs, while 47.3 per cent are available for work. Again, a .3 per cent difference. The civilian staff of the RCMP is 82.6 per cent female; Citizenship Canada, 74 per cent female; Transport Canada, 75 per cent male. What are we going to do in these departments? Are we going to make sure we get the right quotas, get rid of women in one department and get rid of men in the other? What are we going to do?

The overall statistics in government and outside government show the employment equity program has very little effect.

Before the member responds to these statistics, the polls consistently show that Canadians are against employment equity. Approximately 70 per cent to 80 per cent of Canadians are against employment equity programs, such as this Liberal program.

I want to ask the hon. member how the Liberals can totally disregard the will of a large majority of Canadians and ignore these polls on the issue when they are so willing to accept the results of their own polls on other issues?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the Reform Party obviously needs to educate itself. The member for Vegreville just said "if discrimination finds its way into the workplace". It is impossible to look at any statistics from the workplace and not accept that discrimination finds its way into the workplace.

I will quote some additional statistics from a recent report by Simon Fraser University. Canadian born Greek males earned 16.2 per cent less than Canadian born males of British background. Even those earnings paled beside the ones for black and Filipino immigrant males who posted earnings that were respectively 21 per cent and 20.2 per cent lower than those for Canadian men of British background. Double jeopardy operates for women. Visible minority immigrant females earned 7.2 per cent less than white Canadian females. I therefore ask the hon. member to please take the if out of his statements about discrimination in the workplace.

Employment equity is not about being able to get a job; it is about having an equal opportunity to get as good a job if the person is as good. It is true that over 80 per cent of employees in the clerical category in the Government of Canada are women. Those happen to be the lowest paid jobs. That may be why there is such a high representation of women. Employment equity is about giving all groups the opportunity to earn the same as anybody of similar competence. Within that group of clerks the top levels are more likely to be occupied by men. Even within that group of clerks women are not allowed to progress.

The member referred to the fact that equity has been achieved. It has not. Notwithstanding the qualifications, we must look at the quality and the rate of pay, rather than simply being able to access the lowest paid jobs.

I sat through a couple of months of committee hearings on this bill. There was only one poll which came forward which said that Canadians were not in favour of equality in employment and it was a flawed poll. If the Reform Party had more polls with more validity to bring forward at any time during those hearings, it had every opportunity to do so, but it did not.

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

Mr. Speaker, this country is managed by statistics. The hon. member pulled out statistic after statistic about who is where in our society. I wish government members would go to their ridings and talk to the people one at a time. Maybe then they would understand more about what is going on in the country.

I am very happy to speak to Bill C-64, the legislation of a Liberal perfect world. It was interesting to hear the debate over the last two days, but it is somewhat disheartening. Let me go back to an issue which is somewhat related to this. Let us look at what the Liberals know about the workplace.

Today in Halifax we learned of how the minister of patronage in Atlantic Canada is meddling in the job market. Surprise, surprise. Once again the friends of the minister have mismanaged millions of taxpayers' dollars at Cornwallis Park Development Agency in what has been called potentially the biggest boondoggle in the last two decades.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. What does it mean to the Liberal minister for Atlantic Canada, the minister of public works? Once again we see that the minister of public works has his own version of job equity. A person has to belong to one of two categories in this country: either donate to the Liberals or become friends with one. That is the only way to have an equal shot at a job in Atlantic Canada.

I do not think the government has any idea of what job equity is. Who a person knows and whom they donate to are what really count.

The seeds of dissension are here among our young. They are not there for lack of a job equity bill; they are there because many of them see themselves as not being able to get jobs because of quotas. Government will deny the use of the word quota. I will explain exactly where I get this terminology: right out of the bill.

This is social engineering at its worst. Ontario has just elected to do away with it. We are not talking about America, as one of our Liberal colleagues over there said. This is Ontario. Apparently there is a mismatch now. The Ontario government says it will do away with it while the Liberal government in Ottawa is about to impose it on the rest of Canada.

It is also interesting that the last speaker from the Liberal Party said that we in the Reform Party talk about affirmative action which is all wrong. However, the Liberal member for Halifax in a partial quote said this morning, "affirmative action would not be necessary if employment equity were in existence" or something to that effect.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

What is the difference?

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

That is exactly what she was talking about and the other one said: "You are talking about it over here".

What is the answer? The answer is: "We will fix it. We will fix it for everybody in Canada. We Liberals have the answer". Let me show what their answer is. Goals versus quotas, are they the same thing? Under the Employment Equity Act, section 6, an employer

is not required "to hire or promote unqualified persons" which is good, nor "to create new positions in its workforce", which is very good.

Also under the Employment Equity Act, section 33, the Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot impose a quota on the employer where quota is defined as "a requirement to hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number of persons during a given period". This is very good. People say: "That makes a bit of sense to us. We could probably buy into this legislation".

What is not talked about by the Liberals is section 10. 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 the designated groups are established. We will be getting employers to look at short term numerical goals, but these are not quotas. Also longer term goals for increasing the representation of persons in designated groups are also established.

If in the opinion of a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator-there is an investigator; hire him like the ethics counsellor who is not used either-an employer has not made all reasonable efforts to implement the employment equity plan, including the goals, the employer may, if negotiations fail, ultimately be subject to an action by an employment equity review tribunal for contempt of process similar in nature to contempt of court leading to imprisonment until the directive is complied with. This is from sections 25 and 31, mark it down.

An employer, believe it or not, can also be fined up to $50,000 by the responsible minister, who is yet to be determined, for failure to file an employment equity report, for failure to include required information in the employment equity report, or for providing false or misleading information in the employment equity report. This is from section 36, write it down.

Tell me the Liberal government does not have quotas. Tell me this is all voluntary, completely voluntary. Then tell me what it means to have an investigator on staff checking them out.

Tell me what it means to force organizations to have short term numerical goals for hiring and promotion of designated groups and long term goals. If they tell the investigator they cannot make it or they cannot do this or that then they negotiate. If that does not work, there will be a tribunal. If that does not work, they will be put behind bars.

Listen up. What is the government doing? This is not a fun exercise we are going through to get votes and spend money. What this government is legislating here is serious. It has nothing to do with racism but has everything to do with rights and privileges in this country.

Who will the government fine up to $50,000? Why will it fine someone up to $50,000?

What will the government do when it has a quota in a town where perhaps there are not the right number of people? Is will get its investigator to find somebody to take to a tribunal? What if someone is found who is absolutely not suitable for the job? Will that person be placed in the job anyway? That is a great way to get Canada competitive in the global market. The brilliance of social engineering.

Let us look at a couple of application forms. One of these forms was given to me by a backbench Liberal who is not very happy with what is going on here. Among the things asked on this application form is to self-identify. Look in the mirror or perhaps determine what kind of person you really are. Let us self-identify: cultural, racial or linguistic minority person. Explain that and define it. Lesbian, gay man or bisexual. What the heck does that have to do with employment? That is where social engineering hit. That is just one application.

Here is the government's application. The longest thing on the application is the group with which one has to self-identify: Black, Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Indonesian, Pakistani, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Burmese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, Vietnamese, visible minority west Asian, North African, visible minority Latin American, Oceanic, Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian. What is the government doing to this country?

These are application forms. The government is intent on social engineering quota systems. If something is found wrong then it will get its investigator out. He will chase it down, much like the investigator it has under the Official Languages Act. He makes his report.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

That might answer the census question.

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

Perhaps.

This is the politically correct Liberal government days in our Canadian society. Government members will impose on the rest of us those things we do not necessarily want. Do they really think in a community like mine that many visible minorities do not get jobs? In fact they are the majority of employees in many businesses in my community. Do they think other people say that is not fair? We have to try to employ everyone in society regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or sex.

We cannot engineer society through legislation, but the Liberals will do it because they have a majority government. The mess will be there, which they will leave behind when they are turfed out of office.

Let us talk about SMIP. Probably not one of them knows what SMIP is. Do they know? What is SMIP? They have no idea what SMIP is. That is special measures initiatives program, a new program just introduced by the Liberal government. What is it all about?

It retains the successful elements of previous special measures programs. It has new initiatives to support the development and retention of designated group members. There is a recruitment component in SMIP that is similar to old programs but is directed at other groups such as aboriginals, visible minorities and so on.

What does SMIP do? It spends money. It spends $768,000 on aboriginals; $508,000 on all employees; $992,000 on all employment equity groups; $838,000 on more than one but not all employment equity groups; $382,000 on women; and $225,000 on visible minority groups. The list goes on and on.

There is not a person in the House today on that side who even knows what SMIP does. A lot of it buys votes; it enables the government under yet another program to go around the country handing out money.

The Liberal government is involved in quotas. I have explained how and why. If someone would like to stand on the other side and explain what I said, if I were wrong about my discussion on goals and quotas, I would love to hear it. Am I wrong about sections 25 and 31? Am I wrong about section 36? If I am, let us talk about it.

How is it right to ensure fairness in an employment system while at the same time telling some people they need not apply because they do not fit into a category? The government will say that is not really so and they will get another portion of the workplace.

Young people are saying to politicians all the time, not just Reformers but Liberals as well, that they cannot get in there, that they need not apply, that they need not submit an application form to the RCMP. I have had them in my office and I asked why not. They say that they do not fit, that they are excluded from the category. How does it make right on the one hand to exclude people and on the other hand say it is fair and equitable?

[An hon. member]

That is baloney.

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

One member says that is baloney.

[An hon. member]

It is.