Mr. Speaker, if I rise today to participate in this debate on the Reform Party's motion, it is to protect the aspirations and vested rights of women in Quebec and Canada. As we know, this motion concerns employment equity. It embodies-pardon me for being so blunt-every myth conveyed against employment equity.
The motion even refers to the concept of unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular and discriminatory measures. Our colleagues from the Reform Party therefore conclude that this whole system should be abolished and replaced with a system based solely on merit. Before going any further, I take this opportunity to denounce the implication that employment equity target groups, namely women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible or ethnic minorities, do not have as much merit as others.
Let us start with a definition. What is employment equity? In a document prepared by the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the 1992-93 regional conference of women, employment equity is defined as a process intended to bring about an equal distribution of workers who are too often refused training and promotion occupations within certain groups and areas. It added that, to be successful, employment initiatives must go beyond mere recruiting to ensure an environment free from discriminatory practices at work.
It should also be pointed out that one can take one of two views on employment equity; one being centred on results and the other on equal opportunity. I like to think that our society is seeking a balanced mix of the two.
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the principle underlying the employment equity legislation. Recognition of the fact that entire segments of our society are basically denied equal access to decent jobs is crucial to the issue of women and poverty.
Women, as we have said time and time again, are poor. Women members of visible minority groups, aboriginal women and women with disabilities are even poorer. Is it necessary, in May 1995, to back this up with statistics? I think not, and I will spare the House the statistics today.
In the face of this problem of poverty, which all too often is chronic among women, one must realize that employment equity measures are not only necessary, but essential, in order to fight poverty. Only through economic equality will this problem be resolved, but except in rare cases, economic survival is dependent upon employment.
Let us now move to the heart of the matter. Before statistics can be compiled on women or aboriginal people in key positions or their promotion rate, members of the target groups mentioned designated in the legislation must first find jobs. In order for them to have access to jobs, measures have to be developed to foster equal employment opportunity, as job access is dependent upon certain preconditions.
For one thing, it may be useful to remind members that the mere existence of a sufficient number of available jobs is in itself a basic requirement. Some other conditions are the existence of full-time permanent jobs, a social infrastructure, adequate daycare and job training and access to non-traditional jobs. I will elaborate on the above points.
As I already mentioned, saying that a sufficient number of jobs are necessary to promote the access of women and of other groups to employment is a truism. Unfortunately, it is all too true that the current government has relegated this issue to the sidelines.
The Bloc Quebecois has vehemently decried the shameful omission of job creation programs from the two Liberal budgets. In effect, apart from the national infrastructure program, this issue has been at a standstill. And the jobs which have been created, temporary for the most part, only target men. There is nothing available for women, nothing at all. We have already seen much better job access visions.
Here is an example of an invalid policy on job access. To have access to jobs, there must first be jobs available. That is the very foundation of the principle. For women or other groups desig-
nated under the act to have equal access, the jobs that are accessible to them must be full-time and permanent, just like most of the jobs held by white men. Why? Let us take a look at the statistics.
A study carried out by Statistics Canada and published in the autumn of 1994 revealed that for the period between 1980 and 1993, most of the people working part-time against their wishes, I stress against their wishes, were women. In 1993, some 510,000 women in Canada held part-time positions, twice the number of men in the same category. Therefore, it is women who are having to deal with the problem of part-time work. The effect of this, as you might have guessed, is first on salary and then on advancement possibilities and thus on the possibility of attairing a better standard of living.
Likewise, permanent jobs are essential. Women are in the unfortunate position of being the leaders in casual, seasonal and badly paid jobs.
We have already referred to the march organized by Quebec women to demand that the government act to reduce poverty among women. The organizers of the "bread and roses march" are demanding, on behalf of the women of Quebec, what they have combined under the heading of social infrastructure, which includes the resources to be put in place to help improve the quality of life in their communities.
I refer here to resources for self-help initiatives, help for the disadvantaged, popular education, day care, literacy programs and integration of new arrivals. These resources, in addition to providing obvious support for social organization also give rise to many jobs for women where their particular skills are recognized. These resources must be strengthened and supported. This is a measure promoting women's access to jobs.
When it comes to job access, the immediate stumbling block for many women is child care. We must continually remind ourselves that real access to child care services is often the first step women must take on the road to work. If they run into a wall at this stage, there is no point in talking about job access. And we are still waiting for the government to move on this, as it promised to do in the red book, and provide day care spaces.
Similarly, it is hard to talk about equal access to employment when individuals lack the training required to hold the jobs that are still available. Women have always been disadvantaged in this regard. The "bread and roses" marchers have drawn attention to the problems of women without cheques, women who are excluded from subsidized training programs, because they receive neither UI nor welfare
The figures are alarming. Forty-four per cent of the adult population have not completed high school or professional studies. However, jobs created in the year 2000 will require 17 years of education. When you do not have a diploma, it is hard to talk about equal opportunity.
To conclude this overview of the prerequisites to access to employment, we must not forget women's access to non-traditional jobs, because they are for the most part the new jobs being created. As an example, I would like to mention the proposal made last week to the Conseil régional de concertation et de développement de Québec by the Regroupement des groupes de femmes du Québec and the Comité régional des partenaires pour l'accès et l'intégration des femmes aux secteurs d'emplois non traditionnels.
This proposal asked that the Conseil régional establish an equal opportunity policy and enforce it in the implementation of projects submitted by sponsors. This is what is innovative about it: in order to promote the access of women to non-traditional employment, sponsors who wish to have a project approved by the Conseil régional will have to develop and implement an equity program within their business. Now that is taking the bull by the horns. It is also the sort of concrete action target groups need if they are to have equal access to employment.
Let us now move on to the second stage of the process, the working environment per se, which brings us to some statistics. We will assume that there are measures to promote access to employment and that they are effective. Women and other groups therefore have jobs. Is there still a need for employment equity measures? As you will have guessed, the answer is yes.
Who gets the jobs that pay well and that are higher up the ladder? Unfortunately, the statistics in no way back up the Reform Party's motion. First of all, with respect to salary, we know that women, even those with university diplomas, are still earning 73 per cent of what men earn. This is an inequality that is partially explained by the fact that women are concentrated in the lower ranking, and therefore less well remunerated, jobs.
In the Public Service of Canada, 84 per cent of women occupy such jobs. However, women represent only 16.1 per cent of the executive group of this same employer. And yet, I would point out, the Public Service of Canada is governed by an employment equity act.
In Quebec City, which has adopted an equity policy, women account for 81 per cent of employees earning less than $41,000. Imagine the situation when employers are not subject to this legislation. Women therefore occupy jobs that pay less and carry no decision making authority. They must also contend with the highly disturbing phenomenon of sexual harassment.
We know that sexual harassment prevents women from attaining equality since victims often end up leaving their jobs or suffering the consequences when they file a complaint. The problem is a major one. It has been hardly a year since the daily newspaper Le Droit reported that, according to a Statistics Canada survey, 25 per cent of women said they had experienced harassment in the workplace, that is one woman in four. Of this
number, 39 per cent of incidents involved a person in authority. Surely no one would think for one moment that the job performance of a woman who is the victim of sexual harassment will be the same as that of a male colleague, that she will be evaluated objectively, that her opinion will be taken into account? Sexual harassment is a loathsome expression of the inequality that often plagues women. All the measures aimed at eliminating sexual harassment foster employment equity.
I could also talk about the importance of working conditions that are compatible with parental or support roles, such as parental and maternity leave and flexible hours. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time. I can, however, tell you that such working conditions are an essential part of employment equity. The measures designed to help individuals juggle family and job responsibilities facilitate access to the labour market and especially job retention. Such equity measures ultimately promote women's economic equality.
I cannot conclude without commenting on the insidious merit principle. The motion tabled by the Reform Party calls for rejecting Bill C-64 because hiring and promotion should be based solely on merit rather than on gender and race. If the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is so determined to put merit before gender and race, how does he explain the fact that women still earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men? I would like him to explain this to me.
Of course, in an ideal world, hiring and promotion would be fair, and there would be no discrimination on the basis of race, gender or physical disability. Yet, statistics show that we do not live in an ideal world. Non-disabled white men still hold 78 per cent of management positions in the public service. The powers and the economic levers are in their hands.
Let us look at the merit principle. As Kate Erickson of the National Association of Women and the Law claims, merit is assessed in a traditional way based on value judgments. The merit principle is part of discrimination history. In other words, during a job interview, a white man with the same lifestyle, clothing and education as the CEO will seem better qualified. On the other hand, a member of a visible minority will not benefit from the same stereotype and will seem unqualified. Yet, if these people were judged solely on their qualifications and experience, without a family name revealing ethnic origin, for example, it might be possible to look at their real qualifications independently of their social status.
The notion of merit is rather arbitrary. Systemic barriers have always prevented some individuals from landing jobs. The employment equity legislation does not suggest that individuals without qualifications be hired. It does not suggest that we should hire people on the basis of their race, gender or physical condition. It suggests that systemic barriers be removed so that individuals who meet the job requirements can be hired in spite of their differences.
In an ideal world free of racism and discrimination, we would not need this kind of legislation. However, in a world where employers do not want to hire a certain individual because it would mean having to widen doorways in order to allow wheelchair access, where 25 per cent of women are sexually harassed in the workplace, where women with disabilities and immigrant women are poorer than their male counterparts, we need such legislation. The fact is that, at present, the workplace does not operate on merit and is not fair and equal. Without legislation, there can be no fairness.
Only a very small part of the motion is acceptable in its wording. "Equality for all Canadians" are fine words describing an ideal situation. Unfortunately, we are still a million miles from there, especially as far as women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities are concerned. And it is for these people that we pass legislation on employment equity, so that, someday, they can have equal access to jobs available to men and finally break out of the poverty in which they are kept by the present system.
