Debates of May 30th, 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.

Standing Committee On Government Operations

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) (a) , the following motion, standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is deemed adopted: ``That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) (a) , consideration of Privy Council votes 1, 5, 10 and 35 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, by the Standing Committee on Government Operations, be extended beyond May 31, 1995''.

Committees Of The House

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

Madam Speaker, when the House last sat on Friday I presented to the House the 78th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I believe it would be appropriate that I move that the 78th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, May 19, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Madam Speaker, I have a second motion.

There is a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to associate members. If the House gives its consent, I move:

That the name of the following member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Alcock.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Madam Speaker, I move:

That pursuant to subsection 7.(7) of the Referendum Act, chapter 30, Statutes of Canada, 1992, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be the committee to undertake the review of the regulations proposed under subsections 7(3)and (4) of the act.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

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

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today to the House. In the first residents within my riding of Langley, Abbotsford and Aldergrove ask Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code which states that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between a child and grandparents and failing agreement between the parties the modalities of the relations are settled by the court.

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

The second petition, Madam Speaker, requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amendment the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following two petitions from my riding. The first containing 53 signatures requests that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, containing 50 signatures requests that Parliament immediately extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions protesting Bill C-41 today. One hundred and eight additional constituents of mine protest that Bill C-41 will establish a dual standard of justice by punishing identical crimes with different sentences. They also protest the inclusion of the undefined phrase sexual orientation in federal legislation because they feel it will lead to some people being given special legal rights.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present two additional petitions against Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Three hundred and seven more petitioners feel existing gun control laws are doing the job in Canada, that new laws will be ineffective and expensive and that money and resources ought to be diverted toward fighting crime instead of fighting responsible gun owners.

I am pleased to agree with both of these petitions.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting petitions signed by constituents of Prince George-Peace River. They feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from acquiring guns by illegal means.

Furthermore, the petitioners feel that many existing firearms regulations were brought in for a matter of public policy with no regard to future effectiveness and potential benefit.

Therefore they ask Parliament to support laws which punish criminals using firearms, support, recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and abolish any existing gun control laws which have proven to be ineffective.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

moved:

That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual, case by case basis.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your reading that through to its very logical conclusion. I appreciate the way you put the emphasis on the right spots and so on. It was well read.

Employment equity is really the last gasp effort of an old government style brought forward from the 1960s and 1970s that says governments need to be involved in every little aspect of Canadian life.

When one finds an area in which the government is not involved it seems this government is still hanging on to the residual of an idea that perhaps what we should do is interfere wherever we can in the marketplace, in people's lives, in intrusive legislation; employment equity probably being the last serious effort to intrude in corporate and individual lives from coast to coast.

Employment equity is a road paved with good intentions. It is an idea that perhaps by enforcing certain racial goals, numerical goals and targets on employment hiring practices we can somehow make Canada more discrimination free and that we will all live in the utopia the Liberals would have us believe is just around the bend.

Employment equity and affirmative action have fallen on hard times lately around the world. Employment equity is being challenged and being defeated in the United States courts, including the Supreme Court, one case after another.

There is a proposition in California that will banish affirmative action plans from its law books probably within the year. In Canada, however, instead of following the lead of around the world which is to get away from social manipulation, for some reason the government has decided to expand the employment equity program.

It has brought in Bill C-64 which will expand it to include not only people regulated by the federal government but the entire public service, the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS and so on. It is a very intrusive bill. It smacks of social engineering of the worst kind. In the bottom line, it is very discriminatory and that is why the Reform Party opposes it.

In the last week I clipped two or three pieces from a newspaper. I am wondering whether we are in tune with the Canadian people; are we reflecting the things that concern them? Recent opinion polls say that 74 per cent of Canadians oppose employment equity in Canada. In my province of British Columbia, 81 per cent oppose employment equity. The government, instead of retrenching and rethinking this idea, has decided at this time to expand it.

What are the newspapers saying lately? Is it on people's minds? It certainly is on people's minds in Ontario where there is a provincial election going on. The Globe and Mail , hardly a radical paper, in talking about Mr. Harris says he will do away with the employment equity program if given a chance as the premier of Ontario.

The paper asked: "Is it radical to propose that Canada's only quota base affirmative action program", meaning the employment equity program, "which effectively requires discrimination in employment against white males be dropped along with the requirement to track employees by race, sex and disability?" No, the Globe and Mail says that is not radical at all, that it only makes common sense.

A May 27 article from the Globe and Mail says employment equity is no way to run a railroad or a newspaper. I might add that it is no way to run a country.

The article goes through the litany of problems with the employment equity program, everything from how expensive it is to how it is discriminatory, intrusive and gives a lot of power of invasion. It is so intrusive in Ontario it had to be exempt from the Ontario human rights act because one cannot be in compliance with the human rights act at the same time as one is forcing employment equity. That is how discriminatory it is.

Also interesting is the way much of this argument rests on a few words. The government says numerical goals are really not coercive and that numerical targets are not really quotas. The government says not to worry, it has numerical goals; they are not quotas, don't worry, be happy.

It is interesting because that is not according to what all Liberals say. The federal and provincial wings of the Liberal Party are divided. We saw a senior federal Liberal saying a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. We have had numerous statements in the House from federal Liberals endorsing the provincial Liberal program of Lyn McLeod. What did Lyn McLeod say about employment equity?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Lyn who?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

She is the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. On May 18 there was a major television debate which started off with a question on employment equity, what would all three of the major parties do with employment equity.

The provincial Liberal leader repeatedly attacked the NDP premier of Ontario about the language of employment equity. I quote from the Liberal leader of Ontario: "For me employment equity means ensuring that there is real equal opportunity in the hiring process, in the promotion process. That to me means that we do not support a quota approach by any other name, including numerical targets. To me a quota approach in employment equity is a violation of the principle of equal opportunity".

She went on to say numerical targets by any other name are an approach to quota because it focuses on the end goal. It does not deal with where the efforts should be, which is to ensure at the start of the process that real barriers should be removed.

What does Bill C-64 propose? The government is now trying to ram the bill through committee. One of the first sections of the bill relates to numerical targets. It says not to worry, it is not a quota, it is a numerical target. Numerical target is a harmless little thing meaning, according to Lyn McLeod, a quota. That is exactly what it is. It is a quota and hon. members know it. That is why this kind of legislation is repugnant to people looking for equal treatment for all Canadians and not special treatment for some which causes discrimination against others.

She was talking about equality of opportunity. If I were to take her position on this issue, she talks an awful lot like a Reformer. I almost hate to admit that, but that is the Reform Party position. The Reform Party position is we should ensure equality of opportunity but we cannot guarantee equality of results.

I do not understand why the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals do not get their act together on this. They should look through the two red books. They both have a red book. One is more discredited than the other because the other one has not been around for quite as long. The provincial red book says they

will abolish the numerical targets. That is why they are to do away with it; it does not foster equality.

The leader of the provincial Conservatives says he will do away with the whole program. The federal Liberals seem to be eye to eye with the NDP. They are the only ones in the provincial election who are saying numerical targets are admirable. They along with the NDP seem to think it is a good idea. Even the provincial Liberals say it is not a good idea.

The Liberals probably have honourable intentions. They believe they are trying to foster an attitude of equal opportunity. Unfortunately it is based on a series of wrong assumptions which I will go through at this time.

To begin with, the idea we can somehow have numerical parity, that numbers will somehow make things non-discriminatory or more just is false.

There are all kinds of reasons why people are involved in different occupations: cultural, geographic, economic, historical. People have put other priorities in front of certain types of jobs and people sometimes do not even want to enter the workforce or do not want to work full time. There is never going to be a precise numerical target equalling the representation of the workforce in any one occupation. It is not possible. It will never be possible, no matter how you try to legislate it.

The entire legislation is based on a false assumption. The assumption is that Canadian employers are somehow systemically discriminatory; they are bad. The assumption is that they systemically discriminate against people, they are guilty, and we must force them to jump through hoops. And even if they are not guilty, their parents or grandparents probably were, so we will force them to jump through the hoops and go through a book of instructions. If they do not do as they are told we will jump down on them with the compliance police in order to make sure they do it.

It is wrong to assume that employers are discriminatory. I realize we do not live in a perfect world, but where we have examples of discrimination I say the courts and the human rights tribunals should come down on them like a ton of bricks. We have no patience on this side of the House for people who have discriminatory practices toward anyone. All people should be treated equally. When they are not, then the courts and the tribunals should do their job and make sure that those employers are punished properly. That has always been our position.

We also have big problems with the statistical base this whole thing is founded on. For example, 10 per cent of aboriginals refused to even be enumerated in the 1991 census. Also, we will be working with 1991 statistics until the year 2003. In other words, we are going to try to mesh current employment practices with 12-year-old statistics at a time when the demographics of Canada are changing so fast. It just is not going to work. Also, broad statistical generalizations do not take into account that certain groups, even if one believes in group rights, do not need any help.

Not that I like to do this, but Statistics Canada breaks down the Canadian population based on ethnicity and income. If we take the top earning group in Canada by ethnicity, which I think is a repugnant thing to even ask, the people of Japanese origin have the highest per capita income of any group in Canada, followed by Jews and Egyptians, if we take it by ethnicity.

Why would we want to put together an employment equity program that favours, in this case, the highest per capita income group in Canada? If we want to fulfil the letter of the law, if not the spirit, all we have to do is say we will hire this group or that group. Of course we should be hiring based on merit, not on ethnicity. However, if we are filling our quota we may be filling it up with people who do not need assistance, leaving others aside and hiring those who already have a good job or a good statistical average, if that is what matters.

It is interesting that the biggest problem with this statistical base is that in 1991, 765,000 people refused to say what their ethnic background was. Do you know what they put down? They put down "Canadian". Statistics Canada said it would get to the bottom of this by changing the next one so that people will have to answer what their ethnic background is, because we cannot have this dangerous trend where people are starting to call themselves Canadians; we must have hyphenated Canadians. Stats Canada is going to change its forms to ensure we get more hyphenated answers in the next go around. I am so pleased to hear that. That is disgusting.

We are also very concerned about the coercive nature of this. Bill C-64 and the current employment equity practice says that people must self-identify their ethnicity and whether they are one of the four designated groups: a visible minority, a woman, a disabled person, and what is the fourth one? Anyway, they must self-identify. What happens if they do not self-identify? The legislation and the courts say they cannot be forced to do it.

It is interesting that DND must now take part in the new process and it has started the identification process. It sends around a questionnaire, which is in two parts. It says on the top: "You must fill out out the top"-the top being your name, rank, serial number, and so on. Part two is optional-wink, wink: "You do not have to fill out the second part about your ethnic background. You will not be discriminated against if you do not. Do not worry about it. Just fill out the top. And if you do not fill in the bottom part, that is fine. Do not worry."

Let us get serious. Once our name is on the piece of paper we are not one of the players in the game. It is left up to the personnel manager or the promotion officer or whoever to say: "Is this guy playing by the rules or not? I am going to ask him to fill out the bottom part and then we will get the ethnicity on this piece of paper if it kills us." That is a very dangerous trend.

We think the whole system is wrong. It is very open to abuse by those who might lie on a form. For example, what would happen if we just encouraged everybody to put down that they consider themselves a member of a minority group? Everybody in Canada, let us all self-identify as minorities. In the end there could be a whole program designed around totally false statistical information, which of course is wrong.

I mentioned that there are only four designated groups. Although the government has no plans at this time to admit other groups, it is interesting how others can be read into it. We know that the courts can read other groups into the charter of rights. Last week, for example, although it did not actually say that homosexuals are included under section 15 of the charter, the federal court said they should be, doggone it, and they will be in future court references. Therefore, the idea that there are only four designated groups could well be expanded.

In the United States one New York firm had to do an entire survey of its workforce, with special attention being given to Canadian Americans, to find out if they had been discriminated against. I guess I should be grateful for that. Maybe we will get employment opportunities in the United States. It just shows how ridiculous it can be when it is taken to its logical extreme.

Employment equity is also very expensive. In the United States, where it has been in place for some 30 years, estimates from Forbes magazine say that it now takes up almost 4 per cent of GDP per year. Billions and tens of billions of dollars in the United States are used up, wasted, instead of helping individuals who need help. Money is wasted on government programs that have not proven effective in helping these groups at all. In Canada it is just starting, so it is not nearly as intrusive and not nearly as expensive; still, it is estimated that about 1 per cent of GDP is wasted on employment equity programs. That is $6 billion or $7 billion a year that is not even helping the people the government wants to help. It is being wasted in book work, reporting, jumping through the hoops, making it look good and so on and not really helping people based on need.

Reform sees this very much as a drag on our economy and a hidden tax on businesses that we cannot afford. It also hurts the designated groups. Many studies have shown how people feel patronized when we say we must have a program to make sure, for example, that we must hire women at this particular place of employment and we must have a special program. The inference is that somehow women are not qualified. Well that is just ridiculous. Fifty-five per cent of people who graduate from universities today are female. I am pleased to see that women have taken a leadership role in all avenues of our country and are continuing to expand as we move from a culture that was basically a home based job of rearing children and looking after the house and so on. We have evolved from that to a culture where women are accepted and should be accepted in all areas of the economy.

To say they somehow cannot compete on an even footing is very patronizing, not only to women but to the other designated groups as well. We have a role in government to ensure equality of opportunity. We should challenge everyone to compete equally. It is the role of government to ensure that and not to dictate the results on the employment side.

There are many other things my colleagues will be bringing up dealing with what is wrong with this whole idea. I look forward to the debate as it unfolds.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I am shocked and deeply saddened, as I am sure most Canadians are, by the appalling lack of knowledge and the insensitivity shown by the hon. member's motion. It would be laughable were it not so lamentable.

Discrimination is no laughing matter. This mean-spirited motion adds insult to injury for millions of Canadian women, aboriginal peoples, visible minority members and persons with disability who already know all too well the disadvantages of being a member of these designated groups.

It is patently clear that this attempt to kill Bill C-64 is nothing more than a desire to turn back the clock to the days when men were men and everyone else knew their place. Canada cannot afford the anachronistic attitudes embodied in this opposition motion to stand in the way of progress.

To those who are members of the designated groups employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is the freedom to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights, to participate in the political process and to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

Employment equity means simply that everyone is treated equally, not preferentially and not to the detriment of non-designated Canadians. It means only that qualified candidates, regardless of gender, race, or physical or intellectual capacity, will be given equal consideration for recruitment and will be promoted on the basis of merit.

I would like to point out to the House the flawed thinking at the foundation of this motion and to clarify the obvious advantages of the proposed employment equity amendments. Let me address the litany of complaints about Bill C-64 one by one.

First let us look at the suggestion that the legislation is unnecessary. Tell that to the Canadian human rights commissioner, who in 1994 alone fielded a total of 1,372 complaints based on either disability, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sex.

I challenge the hon. member to test his thesis on persons with disabilities in this country who are being hired in proportion equivalent to about one-quarter of their representation. Along with aboriginal peoples, they experience the highest unemployment rates in this country, at 18.5 per cent, which is double the national average.

Perhaps he might explain to young, visible minority Canadians, who are generally better educated and trained at higher levels than the general population, why they too experience significantly higher rates of unemployment. Let him tell the women of Canada there is no need for employment equity when although they may prove themselves to be eminently qualified for jobs they are often still unable to break through the glass ceiling.

To quote Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, the former chair of the royal commission on employment: "For every woman in the thousands whose glass ceilings have been melted, shattered or raised, there are women in the millions who think a glass ceiling is just one more object to polish".

I want to remind the members of the Reform Party that white male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce yet they land 55 per cent of all jobs. Men account for roughly 90 per cent of all senior managers. They also earn on average about 20 per cent more than women workers.

The recent Wannell and Caron report which looked at employment equity groups among recent post-secondary graduates found that even if men and women start out on an equal basis in the labour market, a change occurs as they progress in their careers. The earnings gap tends to grow over time within a group of graduates. The report's authors discovered the female-male earnings ratio dropped by 5 per cent over a five year period.

I ask the House: Does any of this suggest members of designated groups enjoy preferential treatment? The figures speak for themselves.

Speaking of numbers, the opposition's claim that employment equity is too costly just does not add up. This initiative has been designed to minimize the regulatory burden and cost to business by streamlining and simplifying the requirements into a single legislative approach. To ensure any new regulations result in the least burden possible, consideration is being given to using a business impact test developed by the Department of Industry.

Coverage of the Employment Equity Act has not been extended to include small business, nor has coverage of the federal contractors program been expanded. The threshold remains at 100 employees.

There will be some cost to private sector employers for responding to audits under the act but they will be offset by the savings resulting from the proposed amendments in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Costs to government have also been carefully calculated.

I can assure the House that the Department of Human Resources Development will not experience any additional expense as a result of this legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has also indicated it can undertake the compliance related activities in Bill C-64 within its current budget.

These cost considerations do not begin to take into account the many economic benefits of employment equity. Progressive employers report employment equity gives them a competitive advantage. They say the legislation helps them attract, retain and motivate employees from all backgrounds, not only an advantage in terms of human resources but also in tapping the more diverse marketplace. It is clear that on this front the Reform Party is seriously misinformed, as it is with respect to employment equity's popularity.

I remind the hon. member that the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons conducted broad consultations, hearing from over 50 witnesses representing the interests of business, labour and designated groups. The vast majority of those witnesses indicated they were in favour of employment equity. Needless to say, so are the millions of Canadian women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and aboriginal people who make up more than half of the country's population. It is hard to argue with numbers like those.

I must confess I have the most difficulty trying to comprehend the opposition's argument that employment equity has been discriminatory and harmful to designated groups. While there is undeniably a lot of work yet to be done, members of many of the designated groups have seen substantial progress since the original Employment Equity Act was introduced.

Women's representation in the workforce is now in line with their availability, although many continue to be ghettoized in low paid and part time work. Movement into management positions is improving. Women's representation in middle management positions increased from about one-third in 1987 to

over 43 per cent in 1993, while their share of senior management jobs more than doubled to just under 11 per cent.

Visible minorities have also made slow but continuing progress in all occupational groups, including management. The representation of visible minorities in the actual workforce increased from 5 per cent in 1987 to more than 8 per cent in 1993. That is close to their 9.1 per cent availability rate. The really good news is in the banking sector where visible minorities enjoy their highest representation at 13.4 per cent.

It is important to point out to the House that these gains have not come at the expense of other Canadians. In a statement accompanying the 1994 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, chief commissioner Max Yalden said: "Far from falling behind, able bodied white males appear to be getting more than a proportionate share of hiring. Such data hardly convey a convincing portrait of reverse discrimination".

The very real danger of this motion is that it could cause serious damage. If adopted, it would recreate in law an unacceptable working standard for millions of disadvantaged Canadians. It would tacitly condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination which we know already exist in the workplace.

It would permit prejudice to go unchecked and might even encourage the outright acts of physical or sexual harassment of the most vulnerable. Now that I have outlined what is wrong with the opposition's motion, let me talk about what is right with the actions this government has taken in the area of employment equity through Bill C-64.

As we promised in the red book, the new employment equity act will broaden its coverage to include both the public service and the private sector. The revisions to the legislation will establish the same core obligations on public and private sector employers to develop and implement equity plans and programs.

The present act covers roughly 5 per cent of all people employed in Canada. Extending coverage within the public service will add another 2 per cent. When one considers that there are roughly 230,000 employees among the 80 federal departments, boards and agencies, the changes represent a substantial number of new opportunities for members of designated groups.

Inclusion of the public sector is a fulfilment of our pledge in the red book to have a federal workforce representative of the public it serves. For the same reason, federal contractors will also be obliged to comply with the principles of the Employment Equity Act.

Another key improvement to the legislation is the increased authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Its mandate is being broadened to allow it to conduct audits of public and private sector employers to verify and gain compliance with the act.

The changes will clarify the commission's enforcement powers to ensure that employers pay more than lip service to the principle of employment equity. I can assure the House however, that the amendments are not meant to be heavy handed. The fact that an enforcement mechanism will be established is a guarantee. The legislation is intended to achieve a balance. The act will not set out to solve one set of problems for employees by creating another one for employers. Changes to the regulations will be minimal and developed in full consultation with business.

This government is committed to creating an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. We are convinced that the proposed amendments which will not increase the paper burden will allow us to do just that. We are working to do everything possible to ensure that every Canadian, regardless of gender, race or physical attributes, has a chance to fulfil his or her potential, to get a rewarding job and to contribute to the social and economic health of Canada.

Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a catalyst for improvement in the workplace. Workforce diversity will enhance Canadian companies' competitiveness in the global economy at very little cost.

I ask members of this House how any of us can put a price tag on personal fulfilment and the dignity that comes with having a job. Ultimately, the amendments to the Employment Equity Act are not about counting numbers or instituting new rules and regulations. They are about providing enhanced opportunities for self-sufficiency and self-satisfaction for women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. They are about giving meaning to the lives of millions of work ready Canadians, men and women seeking the respect and recognition, the salary and enhanced lifestyle that comes with work.

The proposed changes are designed to promote the optimal use of our rich human resources. They are intended to act as a stimulus to our national economy. They are a reflection of the progressive way this government is addressing the employment equity issue.

The misguided motion put forward by the opposition misses the point. Bill C-64 is an affirmation that hiring and promotion should be based on merit rather than special designation. The bill is designed so those decisions are based solely on the bona fide requirements of an occupation and not on any other non-job related criteria.

The legislation clearly states that the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer "to hire or promote unqualified persons". With respect to the public sector I will quote again: "to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring or promotion on selection according to merit". That

of course begs the question: What could anyone possibly find discriminatory about that?

I can only conclude, as did the Canadian human rights commissioner in the annual report last year, that occasionally the tone of the opposition to employment equity seems more than a little shrill. For all who believe in the principles of democracy and the noble ideas of this institution, the Employment Equity Act is a welcome reminder of the values we hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation that Canadians are just and honourable people who passionately believe in fairness and dignity for all.

I am proud to count myself among those individuals who support employment equity. I urge members of this House to defeat this draconian motion.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member counts himself in support of employment equity. In my province he joins 11 per cent of the population who would agree with him, and only 11 per cent.

I was on a talk show last week about the issue of employment equity. The host of the talk show asked me a couple of questions which may be similar to what the hon. member mentioned. For example, one question was: How will we make sure that employers hire the best? The member talked about progressive employers attracting the best employees. It may possibly be that because this legislation was designed in Ottawa that this whole concept is so flawed.

Members should take the time to come out to Vancouver sometime because there is actually a country that exists beyond the Rocky Mountains. They should come out and see what British Columbia looks like. British Columbia, especially Vancouver and the lower mainland, is the most cosmopolitan area in Canada.

Hundreds of thousands of people from all different ethnic backgrounds live in harmony together in the lower mainland and work well together. By the year 2000, 85 per cent of all new job applicants will come from those four designated groups. What employer in Vancouver is going to say: "I am going to refuse to hire the best people I can get". That is an employer who is on the way out and is going broke.

In Vancouver if employers are not prepared to hire the best people, regardless of gender, visible minority status and so on, they will not be able to compete on the west coast of Canada. They must hire the best. Employers in the lower mainland find this laughable. That is why there is only 11 per cent support in the entire province. They look at this and say: "We are hiring the best. I do not care what gender they are, what colour they are or what background they have. We want to hire the best people we can".

Although they talk about the progress since employment equity was brought in, the old Employment Equity Act, employers who have been covered under the act for the last eight or nine years have done absolutely no better in hiring people from the designated groups than employers who are not covered under the act. In other words, they have done all the paperwork, gone through the motions, done the surveys and spent the money but it has not made a lick of difference. If it helped maybe I would be persuaded, but it has not made any difference because employers in the non-covered areas have done equally as well in hiring people from the designated groups.

In Toronto, if we were to take the low income people by ethnicity, Portuguese people have some of the lowest per capita incomes, the lowest employment rates and one of the lowest graduation rates from high schools. It is a problem in that community. The ironic part is that they could live across the street from someone who fits in a visible minority group and the visible minority would be covered under the program but the Portuguese people would not be covered. Why? Because they do not fit the right criteria.

They have demonstrated need. They have historical disadvantage. They have low per capita income. They have poor job opportunities. They have less education. They have need of assistance based on need, not based on ethnicity, but they cannot get assistance because they are not in the right group. That is totally unfair because that group needs help as much as or more than any other person who might be living on that street.

I would like the member to respond to any of the comments I have made and to give me examples from his list of employers who have been using poor employment practices. As I mentioned earlier, nowadays the people who refuse to hire the best are the companies on the way out. That is good. If they are not hiring the best they deserve to go broke. However they should not have to hire based on a quota. If it is 80 per cent female, what is the difference? If those are the best people they can find for the job, great.

I would like him to tell me about his list of discriminatory employers who he will whack into line with this coercive legislation.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member listened to the speech I delivered or paid enough attention to the great number of people who appeared before the human rights and status of disabled persons committee to understand that the Employment Equity Act is a positive measure by the government to ensure that some of the inequities in society are addressed in the fairest possible way.

One of the exercises the hon. member should do, if he is serious about bringing about positive change to society, is to look at the power structure in the country, whether political or economic, to see whether the cultural diversity present in the population is reflected within the power structure. He could perhaps read The Vertical Mosaic by Porter, which will enlighten him a great deal about the sort of things we have to do to make society a fairer and more just society than it is today. I cited a few statistics during my speech that clearly illustrated it was a very fair act that was trying to address some of the existing inequities.

I know where the hon. member and the Reform Party are coming from. They are concerned a great deal about the white male relationship to the economy. I understand their instinctual response to that because obviously intellectually it is very poor.

I want to tell them again, so they can get it straight once and for all, that while white Canadian males make up 45 per cent of the workforce they land 55 per cent of the jobs. When Reform members are speaking to their constituents they should present them with the facts of life as they relate to the Canadian reality. They should try to tell them that discrimination unfortunately exists in the country. It does affect aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities who are not given fair treatment in our economic system.

We as a society could close our eyes to that reality, or we as a government could open our eyes to the reality and try to address it. Through Bill C-64 the government is heading in the right direction.

I say to the Reform Party that it should not kid itself. Canadians understand where that party is coming from.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Oh, yes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

They understand exactly what the motion is all about. They read between the lines. The hon. member can couch it in elegant language but we know what it is all about. The Canadian people know what it is all about.

Reformers will have to go to the people of Canada and talk to over 50 per cent of the Canadian population who have not been given a fair deal. They will have to explain their stand and tell them that the hiring practices existing in the country are fair to all. When the Reformers have those answers they can come back here. They can speak to the people with disabilities, to visible minorities and to all the groups that appeared before the committee. They can give them the right answers and not play cheap politics with something that is extremely serious to our economic system.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take part in the debate. Once the House has returned to normal, you will permit me to say what is obviously a fact and what I am proud to point out: that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill on employment equity.

You will understand my concern that we should be dealing, in this House today, with a motion that is, in my opinion, ultraconservative. It is very backward and has a major strike against it because it fails to take into account a basic premise, which has been brought to our attention by a number of witnesses since December. The Standing Committee on Human Rights of which I am the vice-chairman has been working for almost seven months on employment equity.

I can assure you that we have had a number of people come and remind us that one would have to be completely blind and particularly obtuse not to understand that, when it comes to dealing with the labour market and finding one's niche in an organization, people are not all equal before the law.

Permit me to point out that the notion of employment equity is not new. In the early 1970s there was a movement in Canadian society and people demanded that legislators intervene to promote greater equality among individuals.

There are, in the area of employment equity, two major types of discrimination. There is discrimination, which is more at the individual level in our society, which takes the form of prejudice and stereotypes and which is found in interpersonal relationships. There is another broad type of discrimination, which is systemic. This means that the system, the labour market, left on its own, would generate inequality of itself, and we would find ourselves in a situation created by a set of practices and procedures. The most obvious example of this, which we all know, is that women do not have the same career options.

These arguments could also apply to politics. We must acknowledge that women interested in a political career face additional requirements because there is a social division of labour which takes for granted that women should be responsible for child care. The same goes for the labour force. It is much more difficult for a woman to reach management levels because of the social pressures that still exist in our society.

That is why in 1983 the Liberal government then in power asked Judge Rosalie Abella to lead a commission of inquiry and recommend what could be done to achieve greater equity in the workplace. What is interesting about this commission, which made 31 recommendations-including some that have become

law and some that are included in Bill C-64-is that the Isabella Commission defined discrimination right off the bat. The commission defined discrimination as the arbitrary barriers that deny some people the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.

This definition underlines the early link between the desire to end discrimination and the notion of ability.

What I find most appalling, most disgusting in the Reform rhetoric is that, throughout committee proceedings, they tried to establish a false link between employment equity and ability. As if public or private sector employers promoting employment equity had to hire incompetent people.

Right from the start, the Abella Commission made it clear that the two employment equity laws did not require employers in any way to hire incompetent people.

There is something very loathsome as well as some dishonest associations in the Reform Party's arguments.

What was the situation? Now that the Employment Equity Act has been in effect for nearly seven years, we see that some progress has been made. Let us look, for example, at the four designated groups. As members know, employment equity is a requirement for private sector employers with 100 or more employees. At the present time, the Employment Equity Act affects roughly 5 per cent of the labour force and 350 employers. We have not done nearly as much as we could to provide greater coverage for the labour force.

So, any employer who employs one hundred or more employees and does business under federal jurisdiction is required to develop employment equity plans indicating how he will ensure that his workforce better reflects the representation of various groups in the Canadian workforce. This is the purpose, the basis for the Employment Equity Act. Employers are asked to pay special attention to four groups which have a harder time finding a place in our society.

Which are these four groups? They are, as you know, visible minorities, members of ethnic communities; women of course, to whom you are very sensitive and who make up 52 per cent of the Canadian population; aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

Figures show that progress has been made. There are certainly more women and members of visible minorities in the workplace today than before. Let me give you some figures.

In 1987, one year after the Employment Equity Act was first passed, visible minorities represented five per cent of the labour force; in 1993, they represented 8.09 per cent of the labour force. So, there have been gains; there has been some progress. But can we reasonably assume that, without legislation to sensitize employers to visible minority integration, without influencing the labour market in any way, this would have happened anyway? I think not.

As for women, in 1987, they represented 40.93 per cent of the labour force and, a few years later, in 1993, 45 per cent. There have indeed been gains, but we must never lose sight of the fact that women make up half of the Canadian population and that it would be unacceptable for the workplace not to reflect this reality.

As for the other two designated groups, namely aboriginal people and persons with disabilities, they may well be the greatest source of concern to us parliamentarians. While the situation is relatively positive for women and for members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities still have a long way to go.

In 1987, it will be remembered, aboriginal people accounted for 0.66 per cent of the workforce, compared to 1.04 per cent in 1993. This is not even a one per cent improvement. It is important to recognize the need to make room for more aboriginal people on the labour market.

Persons with disabilities account for 13 per cent of Canada's population, something which cannot be overlooked as we are about to enter the 21st century. There are more and more persons with disabilities in our society. These people want to work, and they can be part of the labour force. In 1987, persons with disabilities accounted for 1.59 per cent of the work force, compared to 2.56 per cent in 1993. This represents an increase of just under one per cent.

These figures are a reminder that, when it comes to employment equity, we can certainly not say "mission accomplished". There is still work to be done. I take exception to the comments made by the Reform Party.

Throughout the proceedings, we heard Reform members shamelessly and unacceptably claim that, in 1995, there existed what they called reverse discrimination. They said that, in our society as well as in the workplace, those who are discriminated against and for whom policies are required are in fact white men with no handicap, a group which the neoconservatives of the Reagan era called the silent majority. This is the simplistic argument used by Reform members.

Yet, we see-according to the figures released by the Canadian Human Rights Commission-that white men with no handicap hold 55 per cent of available jobs, while accounting for 45 per cent of the workforce.

Given these figures, how could we possibly agree with the simplistic views of the Reform members and their comments on reverse discrimination?

Another study, conducted by the Pearson Institute, is very enlightening. Two years ago, this institute estimated that, of the people in the top 500 positions in Canada, the movers and shakers who make the most important decisions and have

enormous influence on the government's decisions, less than 1 per cent were aboriginal people, less than 4 per cent belonged to a visible minority and less than 12 per cent were women.

And there are nevertheless still people around who say that there is no need to legislate a more even distribution of influence, power and management positions in our society, than what currently exists.

If they would only make the effort to methodically write up the profiles of the members of each designated group, they would see that there are still some extremely unsettling problems and inequalities. Of course, we are not saying that nothing good has come of the legislation in the seven years since it was passed. We realize that women and visible minorities have made advances. But we can in no way sit back and exclaim: "Mission accomplished".

Let us look a little closer at the realities of the designated groups. In 1994, even 1995, it is downright awful that the average woman working in the private sector, doing exactly the same job, reporting at exactly the same level in the management chain, and holding exactly the same responsibilities as her male counterpart earns approximately 66 per cent of what the man earns. It is statistics like that which should make us all indignant. Why should we tolerate, as parliamentarians, the fact that, as our society prepares to enter the 21st century, a woman and a man with the same responsibilities and qualifications are not paid the same salary?

It is odd that the Reform Party does not mention this reality. This is absolutely incredible, given the large-scale awareness campaigns led by Treasury Board. So, how is it that, during the course of our work the Reform Party never concerned itself with this reality? What about visible minorities? If we conducted a little experiment and put ten members of visible minorities and ten Caucasians-and I say Caucasian because this is the expression used in the Act-in the same room, we would realize that there were more university graduates among the members of visible minorities than among the Caucasians. And yet, half the time, members of visible minorities are limited to jobs that require little education, pay little and involve manual work.

Who is going to tell me that we, as parliamentarians, should not be concerned about this injustice? This is the reality. And then, what about native people? A report was recently tabled in the House on social problems among the native population. The rate of suicide is extremely high among native peoples. My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, could speak much more movingly and more expertly than I on this subject. However, the latest statistics have revealed that, in 1993,-and we are not talking about 300 B.C.-the rate of unemployment among native people was still double the national average.

Native people are concentrated in jobs requiring less knowledge and fewer skills and even more in so-called manual jobs. You would not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that the annual employment income of native people is lower. If you have a job, earn a salary and are a native person you, in all likelihood, will be earning $10,000 less than your white counterpart. This is unacceptable, as you will understand.

As regards persons with disabilities, this is perhaps where the Employment Equity Act has made the least progress. This is understandable, because integrating a person with a disability requires employers to make alterations, what the courts have called reasonable adjustments.

It is because of these realities that we must support a bill like the one tabled by the government. I am not saying that, as the official opposition, we do not have a few reservations about this bill. As the committee members know, we put forward a number of amendments. I would have preferred the employment equity plan to be developed jointly by the workers' representatives and the employers, but such is not the case.

What is the Reform Party so worried about in this bill? Why must we spend our time trying to convince our Reform colleagues that a law such as the Employment Equity Act is necessary in Quebec and Canadian society?

Bill C-64 provides for something that we have been demanding for six years: it will now apply not only to 600,000 private sector workers but also to the Canadian public service. This means that, at a single stroke, 200,000 additional workers will enjoy greater protection. I see this as a positive development, since we must recognize the absurdity of asking private sector employers to promote employment equity while exempting the government. We have waited several years for this amendment.

Another positive point is that there will now be an entity in charge of enforcing the act. While employment equity was previously under the jurisdiction of the minister and the human resources branch, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will now be responsible for enforcing the act. The commission may audit reports and establish an employment equity review tribunal. From now on, when employers do not submit their reports in time or when compliance officers discover violations, a quasi-judicial tribunal will have the power to investigate. That is an achievement, a very positive development, that must be applauded.

What is also very positive, as I think we pointed out earlier, is that we used to ask employers to make a quantitative assessment of their efforts.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of this bill, although we do have a few amendments. But I cannot understand how the Reform Party can take such a small-c conservative, reactionary and deplorable position on human rights.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to what my hon. colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve just said and I was shocked by his criticism of the motion and of the Reform Party for having moved it.

I was shocked because he said that the Reform Party was almost taking the stand that you had to be white, male and without a disability to participate fully in the labour market without being discriminated against. Upon analysis, we realize that the separatist option supporter said basically the same thing; you must be either pro-sovereignty or white and you must absolutely be an old-stock Quebecer to participate in this option.

I would like to quote a few statements that were made. Taking part in a debate in this House on January 27, 1994, the hon. member for Longueuil clearly stated that multiculturalism "is something that has created ghettoes". In an interview for the daily newspaper Le Devoir , the Quebec Deputy Premier said that Quebec would not use public funds to subsidize difference, stating that his government was against multiculturalism.

Minister Louise Beaudoin said that she wanted to live in the society she wanted and was wondering why she could not live in the country to her liking rather than to the liking of English Canadians. "Canadians want a multicultural society, she said, but I do not. This would leave the door open to social ghettoes. I am for integration and against the wearing of the Islamic scarf at school".

So far, Bloc Quebecois supporters and the Quebec government have not shown that they were open to visible minorities and, I might add, to anyone who does not share their political views. We will recall how these minority groups were treated during the public consultation process on the future of Quebec.

I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to tell me how he envisages their proposed society, their nation-building project. How can he justify the position taken by his party and the Quebec government? The fact that aboriginal people must give in to the Premier currently responsible for this issue was raised as an example. What assurances can he give young Quebecers that their future will be brighter? How can he tell aboriginal people in Quebec that their future will be brighter? How can he tell visible minorities that, as he said himself, their future will be brighter? All those minorities.

So far, no matter how hard they criticize the Reform Party, they have done no better. They have clearly demonstrated as much intolerance as the motion before the House this morning.