Debates of May 30th, 1995

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I thought you would have availed yourself of the rule of relevancy. I do not know whether the term "stupid" is unparliamentary, but it spontaneously comes to mind.

I cannot understand how someone can be as confused, as blind and as mixed up as the member for Vaudreuil. You should ask one of the pages to bring him some aspirin, because there is definitely something wrong with him.

I have been working with the government party for seven months to improve employment equity, and the member has the nerve to rise today and speak against the Bloc Quebecois. There is something wrong with him.

Let me kindly remind him that the issue being debated today is whether or not the motion tabled by the Reform Party against the actions of his government is supported by the official opposition. We made a speech in which we expressed our concern about the ethnocentric attitude-the member may not understand that term, but we will send him a dictionary-of Reform members, and the member finds a way to rise and be disrespectful towards me.

I will conclude by telling him this: As for sovereignty, if he wants to debate the issue, I am prepared to do so anytime, anywhere.

I will also tell him that, if he looks at the way the Parizeau government, and the previous Quebec governments, particularly the PQ governments, have treated the English-speaking minority, to which I think the member fully belongs, he will realize that he need not worry at all and, also, that we have no lesson to learn from him, given the respect which we have always shown towards the English-speaking community in Quebec.

The members' comments are shameful, unacceptable and totally irresponsible, in my opinion. I am sure that the Minister of Human Resources Development and his secretary of state are outraged by the fact that a government member would rise to make such irresponsible comparisons.

As for the issue of a better future for sovereignists, the hon. member has come up with a rather stupid and meaningless argument, and I would remind him that when Mr. Lévesque held the referendum in 1980, the federal debt stood at $75 billion. Consequently, when the member rises in this House, he should never forget that the debt now stands at $600 billion.

I am not worried about Quebec's future, but I certainly am concerned about the future of Canadian federalism.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we are getting off topic in a very serious way.

I would like to bring the discussion back on track by saying to the member that he knows full well that the Reform Party is not in favour of any particular ethnic group in Canada. We are fully in favour of equal rights and equal treatment for all Canadians.

One reason the Reform Party opposed the Charlottetown accord was because of the unequal treatment of people based on their ethnicity and background. We said that was wrong.

One trend that has been noted over the last little while is that hearing individual cases of discrimination before the Canadian Human Rights Commission takes an average of a year and a half. I agree there is still discrimination and prejudice and we must fight against it. However the time to hear individual cases has now expanded to a year and a half. The number of cases is dropping year by year because people have given up coming before the commission asking for redress.

I guess my question to the member is this. What does he think we should ask the human rights commission to stress? Should we try to get the time period for the commission to hear cases down from a year and a half to a more reasonable length of time? Should we be spending more and more of our time and energies on the group rights cases, some of them six and seven year cases? I just wonder what he thinks we should do.

Should individuals have quicker access and more resources committed to their individual cases of discrimination? Personally I believe that is what should happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I much appreciate the member's logical and far-reaching question. He will perhaps share my point of view when I remind him that the human rights commissioner appeared before our committee this morning. As you know, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a budget of close to $14 million. We learned that the backlog to which my hon. colleague is referring represents almost 600 cases.

Of course, the ideal situation for any such organization would be no backlog at all. I agree with my colleague. From what I understand of the workings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a body whose work I follow rather closely, it is fairly diligent, and the backlog is, in my opinion, in the acceptable range, not ideal, but acceptable.

Our colleague is right to remind us that, as parliamentarians, we must never accept a situation where the Canadian Human Rights Commission simply processes applications; it must also play a proactive role in developing policy. And it is my understanding that Commissioner Yalden reiterated this morning that that was also part of the commission's action plan.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Halifax.

My colleagues in speaking to Bill C-64 have eloquently stated the numerous reasons why Canada must strengthen the Employment Equity Act. The changes are clearly necessary on moral, social and economic grounds.

I want to oppose this opposition motion and to demonstrate to the House that employment equity is good for the country. Let me remind the proposer of the motion that we brought forward Bill C-64 as progressive legislation that when enacted will quickly prove to be advantageous to both employers and employees.

This initiative has been especially designed to improve the plight of disadvantaged Canadians while at the same time enhancing the country's economic performance. It strikes the right balance between the legitimate needs of the designated groups and the concerns of industry about excessive government intervention, because that is what equality is all about; achieving equilibrium.

If the intent of the opposition motion is to satisfy business and industry concerns, the legislation will actually minimize the regulatory burden and cost to business by simplifying and streamlining procedures. All that is within the bill.

The Employment Equity Act that is before the House will not tip the scales in anyone's favour but instead will serve the best interests of everyone in the country. Quite simply, employment equity is good for Canada.

Canadians are proud of Canada's linguistic and multicultural diversity, so much so that we have enshrined equality in this country's Constitution. We believe firmly in ensuring the protection of individuals' rights, especially those most vulnerable to overt and systemic discrimination.

Report after report, research study after research study, prove that discrimination is a disturbing fact of life for too many Canadians, marginalized from the mainstream because of their race, gender or physical attributes.

I could go on to give the statistics because they disprove the suggestion that these individuals enjoy preferential treatment under the existing legislation. I would ask the opposition to support Bill C-64 because it incorporates constructive contributions of the many Canadians who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons

to ensure that they achieve a reasonable balance. Good employment equity deals with workplace problems in a fair and even handed way.

Let me address some of the misconceptions that some people have about Bill C-64. First, we want to be quite clear that the government has no intention of legislating quotas. In fact the act specifically states that quotas cannot be imposed.

Under the legislation, a quota is defined as a requirement to hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number of persons during a given period. What the act calls for are numerical goals, goals based on the availability of qualified people to do a given job. That is because the philosophy underlying the act is merit, not tokenism.

Under the provisions of Bill C-64, employers are responsible for setting goals and timetables to achieve greater equity in the workplace. The new law would oblige them to make reasonable efforts to achieve that objective.

The legislation recognizes that employers are in the best position to develop meaningful and realistic equity targets. The role of government is to assess whether the employer's numerical goals constitute substantial progress and whether the organization is truly making reasonable efforts to fulfil them.

The bill clearly states that if employers make a genuine effort to achieve greater equality in the workplace they will be found in compliance. The legislation also stipulates unequivocally that directions or compliance orders will not cause undue hardship for an employer, nor will it force firms to hire and promote unqualified people or create new positions in the workplace to satisfy numerical goals.

I should point out as well that the creation of employment equity review tribunals to hear appeals will ensure the interest and concerns of all parties are properly addressed. Good employment equity means equality for all.

There is no going back. We must move forward, removing the barriers to full involvement in Canadian society that have for too long been insurmountable and both a moral and economic imperative.

Employment equity is not about instituting new rules and regulations that will result in so-called reverse discrimination. Neither is it an impediment to business. Good employment equity is instead a catalyst for progress.

Workforce diversity allows us to capitalize on the under utilized talents and skills of more than half the country's population. That in turn enhances Canadian companies' competitiveness in the global economy.

The fundamental issue at stake is far more important than the bottom line on the balance sheet. Only when each Canadian regardless of his or her country of origin, skin colour, gender or physical attribute is free to participate fully in the economic, social and civic life of the nation can we truly say we live in a just and caring society. Our world is far from ideal but with progressive legislation like Bill C-64 we can help to reshape society in a way which will give visible minorities, aboriginal people, women and persons with disabilities hope for the present and confidence for the future.

Ultimately the employment equity challenge comes down to you and me, Madam Speaker. We cannot legislate attitudes. Progress depends on the willingness of each one of us to uphold the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion today would almost reverse Bill C-64 and it should be strongly opposed.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested that it is not a quota when we set a numerical goal. I am having a little difficulty with that concept.

I came to the House with what I call coffee shop common sense. If I were to take this into any coffee shop in any town in my constituency and ask the people the difference between a numerical goal and a quota, I can imagine the same kind of stunned look which must be on my face would be on their faces. I do not understand.

I find it astounding the way the Liberals have taken to wordsmithing. They say it is not a quota, they do not want anything to do with quotas but they will have numerical goals. I am missing something.

[An hon. member]

You are.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

The Liberal members are telling me I am missing something. However, maybe I could inform the parliamentary secretary of something that happened to me as revenue critic.

I was in the Toronto airport going through the customs section being toured around by a black woman from Jamaica. She was telling me how concerned she was that the government seemed to be so set on the idea of creating the problem that she would be in a different category, someone special.

That is the coffee shop common sense of more than 80 per cent of Canadians who are saying the government does not know where it is coming from. The government does not have a clue what is happening as far as the people in Canada are concerned. The people in Canada, including the woman who gave me the tour around the customs section, simply want equal opportunity. They do not want something legislated in which there are to be some kind of numerical goals. She does not want numerical goals.

I report to the parliamentary secretary that this woman said: "I am a capable person. I have my position because I am a capable person, not because I am a woman and not because I am black. I do not want anything to do with numerical quotas or anything else like that".

I do not understand. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can help me and help this wonderful woman who gave me the tour to understand why a numerical goal is not a quota. Explain that, please.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rest my case on the member's statement. I am reminded of a verse I learned when I was very young: "There is none so blind as those who will not see. There is none so deaf as those who will not hear. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

I wonder if there is a will to understand. I wonder if there is a will to comprehend the whole notion of equity, equality and diversity, ensuring everyone in society who for various reasons is taken to the starting line with the word go cannot make the same progress because of various institutional, systemic and other things built into the system.

As an educator I can define quota and numerical goals to the member who I think is convinced against his will and will be of the same opinion.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, with whom we have had this discussion before.

I still do not know the difference between a numerical goal and quota. Perhaps the member would like to explain that again.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is 1995. We have done several things in society to ensure we address equity issues. The member and his party should have a day or a few hours of work with someone who would spend some time taking them through the process. It is a red herring and a waste of House time to be addressing those two items.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I make an offer to the Reform Party if it is serious.

In my former profession one of the things I did was gender sensitivity training, particularly for large organizations. I explained concepts such as this to St. Francis Xavier University. I am sure the members for Fraser Valley East and West would be happy to attend. I would be happy to do this if hon. members could afford me because my fees were fairly high in those days. However, we can always negotiate.

It is wonderful to be back after a week's break and share in the cloud cuckoo land sometimes perpetrated on us by our hon. friends in the third party. They seem to be saying by this motion that there is no discrimination in Canadian society except for specific and regrettable incidents here and there.

To hear them talk, we have reached a state of blissful equality. They tell us that after a few decades of human rights law any of the many and obvious differences in representation in the workplace are now really a matter of personal choice. By their logic, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities like being unemployed more, to the tune of sometimes more than twice the national average.

They talk about women. There are a lot of us sitting on this side. We want to make less money than men. Maybe we as members of Parliament should suggest women members should not make as much money as men. That might be a good idea. Women want to make 67 cents for every dollar men make.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

In your case they will make an exception.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

They certainly would not. They are telling Canadians they are to blame for whatever fate befalls them in the labour market unless they can prove a specific act of discrimination.

When I come to give my seminar to the Reform Party-in the interest of the Canadian way I might even do it for free-I will be happy to explain the concept of systemic discrimination, what it means and how we differentiate between quotas and numerical goals. We have learned that change does come but it comes slowly and needs regular reinforcement and constant support by government and legislation.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has already said and I can only reinforce, one cannot legislate attitudes. If members need an example of this, look across the way.

Many employers have taken their role in employment equity quite seriously. They have taken a hard look at their practices and they see they are not fair. They have moved from simply trying to eliminate blatantly unjust policies to developing ones that correct problems.

People like my hon. colleagues have brought forth in their idea of jest the question in so far as it relates to women and employment equity. They ask about men's groups, are there any men's groups? Yes, there are. It is called western civilization. There is a long way to go. There are still inequalities that deserve to be addressed.

I bring these to the attention of the hon. members opposite. I will focus my remarks on the cold, hard statistical facts that show we have a problem when it comes to equality. They can bury their heads in the sand but all they will do is get sand up their noses.

Let me start with one piece of good news. Members of visible minorities who graduated from universities and community colleges in 1990 earned approximately the same average salary in 1992 as others who graduated that year but they did not fair as well in the other three measures of disadvantaged. Those

graduates were more likely to be unemployed, had lower participation rates and were more likely to be concentrated in lower level occupations such as clerical work.

There is plenty of other evidence that members of visible minorities face overwhelming difficulties in employment. The 1991 census showed these people tend to be better educated than the general population. Eighteen per cent reported a university degree compared with only 11 per cent in the general population. Again, they tend to have higher unemployment rates.

The unemployment rate of visible minority university graduates was 9.4 per cent in that census, whereas in the general population it was 4.1 per cent. Does that say something to my friends opposite? Heaven knows.

Among those who were working, visible minority university graduates were twice as likely to be in low levels, clerical, sales and service occupations, as non-visible minority men. That imbalance was reversed when the census looked at employment in upper levels, middle levels and other management jobs.

Some of my hon. friends might argue it was just the kinds of programs these people took. Even here the facts provide no comfort to their narrow view. When we look at the census data for people with degrees in commerce, business or management we are looking at people with degrees in tangible skills regardless of race or colour.

Why were 28 per cent of non-visible minority males with this kind of useful education in management occupations compared with only 16 per cent of visible minority members with similar degrees? Why were the earnings of visible minorities only 60 per cent of what the others made? It is ludicrous for anyone to stand in the House and suggest all this comes back to bad choices.

I hope enough facts will show hon. members of the Reform Party their glib explanations do not work in real life. I remind them, especially those who want to make inroads in my part of the world, that in Atlantic Canada we understand the questions of inequality. If they want to make inroads there perhaps they had better listen to some of this.

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

You'll be thrown out in the next election anyway.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Right, you and whose army? The unemployment rate for white males with university degrees was just 4.1 per cent in the 1991 census. Compare that with 7 per cent for university educated aboriginal peoples and 10.9 per cent for persons with disabilities with the same academic background.

The situation facing people with disabilities is particularly bad. They are being hired at a rate that is only one-quarter of the representation in the Canadian workforce. They experience an unemployment rate of 18.5 per cent, double the national average. Is it any wonder their labour force participation rate is only 60 per cent?

I could go on: the situation facing aboriginal people not just on isolated reserves but in our cities; the situation facing women who are disproportionately found in clerical, sales and service occupations, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and I in our years as feminists-and proud we are to use that term-know as the pink collar occupations, the job ghettos. Stories of these people have been told eloquently already.

During the recent hearings of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons approximately 60 witnesses came forward to share their experiences and expectations. They came from many backgrounds but the vast majority supported this legislation based on their real life experience, not some theory they posit in their group of white males getting along just fine and do not want the hoards of those people knocking at their gates.

Look out, the gates are being knocked on and they are being knocked on hard.

The committee heard stories of broken dreams. It heard stories of sincere desires to become full participating members of society. Witnesses did not appear before the committee to seek a special deal. Witnesses appeared before that committee to seek fairness. That is what we as members of Parliament have to start giving. Those people on the other side of the House need to learn a little bit about that.

Witnesses did not ask for redress for the wrongs of the past. They wanted attention to the wrongs that are happening right now. These are not the kinds of wrongs human rights commissions can address through individual complaints. These are systemic discrimination that can only be got at by being rooted out and dug out through things like the Employment Equity Act.

The problems have little or nothing to do with evidence of overt discrimination. They have everything to do with removing barriers and implementing innovative solutions.

Mr. Speaker, Reformers seem to seize on the odd statistic that this law has had some impact. They see one improvement in some indicator and declare that the war on inequality has been won: strike down the law and send home the troops. Well not so fast. The battle is not over.

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

She is Madam Speaker. Let us have a little equity here.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I know she is Madam Speaker. She is not going to get upset with that. We know each other very well.

This law is an effort to address problems that are still very much with us as one last fact will prove. Max Yalden, the Canadian human rights chair, recently noted that while white male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce, they account for 55 per cent of all the hirings. I think that is discriminatory.

I urge my hon. friends to put away their ideological blinders and listen, really listen to the needs of all Canadians. I reiterate my offer to help.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member had a chance to sit down to collect her thoughts because she obviously did not before she started to talk.

Would she tell us the difference, a last time, between a numerical target and a quota? Lyn McLeod, the Liberal leader in Ontario says there is no difference between a numerical target and a quota. She says there is no difference and that is why when she gets to be premier, heaven forbid, she will eliminate numerical targets. She says they are the same as quotas. That is what the Liberal leader in Ontario says.

Would the hon. member like to correct her Liberal provincial colleague or does she agree with her?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to deal with the hon. member's question. I have not been following the election in Ontario perhaps as closely as I should because with the greatest of respect to my colleagues from Ontario, some of whom are here in this Chamber now, Ontario is not always the centre of the universe for those of us from Atlantic Canada.

If Mrs. McLeod has indeed made these comments that is Mrs. McLeod's outlook. I suggest the hon. member for Fraser Valley East should discuss that with her.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

She is a Liberal, a provincial Liberal.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

But I am from Nova Scotia and we do not have a problem with these questions in Nova Scotia as Premier Savage could tell the member. We have employment equity on the books in Nova Scotia and it is working well.

As to the difference between quotas and numerical targets, let me do this very, very slowly so there will be no difficulty with comprehension. Let me remind them again that I used to get paid to do this for groups like theirs but the afflicted need assistance and I am happy to help.

A quota. Do we understand percentages? A whole can be turned into 100 per cent. Do we understand that? Let us say we decided we needed a quota of Reformers to be allowed to go and see a movie. Let us say there are 100 seats in the movie theatre. We will give 25 per cent of those seats or 25 seats to the Reform Party. There will be 25 Reformers there and the other 75 people will not be Reformers. That is the quota, okay?

On the other hand, consider a target. I understand why you gentlemen have difficulty with this. The concept is, to a degree, a bit more intellectual, a bit more inspirational than a hard and fast, let us cut the block out of the square.

The answer is to look at the whole picture and say, there are all sorts of Reformers who need the education that this movie can give. Let us look at the number of Reformers that we feel through their merit could understand what it is we are trying to teach. Rather than saying Reformers will get 25 seats, it may well be that only 18 of them will get in because only 18 of them will have the wherewithal to handle it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find the attitude just expressed to be absolutely the most condescending pile of brown smelly stuff. I just find it absolutely astounding.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would request that the member rephrase his comment. The time has almost expired.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House for my indiscretion.

However, I still find it absolutely astounding that the member has not explained the difference. Now she has added to it, if I understood her explanation, that she or the government will be the judge of who is going to be competent and capable of being able to do this. I do not understand this.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am awfully glad I have the opportunity to address this. There are employment equity commissions, not the government. There are employment equity officers and there is an entire set up. Read the bill.

I am sure that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East would not be caught this way because I am sure as the author of the motion he understands what the bill is doing and what, indeed, the history of employment equity in his province is.

I am somewhat shocked that my hon. colleague for Kootenay East would be this way. Again, in closing I reiterate my offer. If they would like to call my office, I would be happy to set up a seminar but I think maybe we ought to do it on a pay as you go basis.