Debates of May 30th, 1995

Supply

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee reviewing employment equity legislation, I am aware that 90 per cent of the witnesses who came before the committee supported the legislation. I am also aware that is likely more by the choice and selection of those witnesses than by the actual representation of the Canadian population to support that.

I have have just done a random telephone poll in my constituency. My constituency is on the outskirts of Vancouver. It is one of the more multicultural communities in our area, with a high percentage of immigration, at least 50 per cent women, I am sure, and so on.

The results of that random polling were opposite to what the committee experienced. There was a 90 per cent rejection of any kind of hiring other than on the basis of merit alone. I was interested in some of the member's comments regarding merit. The Canadian people think highly of that as a criterion for hiring.

She commented on women in the workplace; 73 per cent of the average wage and 78 per cent of men being in management within the public service. Is my colleague aware that some of that may be due to choice or the time factor involved in entry into the workforce? Is she aware there are far more women being allowed to enter grad school now than there are men? The

average wage coming out of university is equal if not slightly to the advantage of women.

Does she think women have the right to claim a choice if they do not want to work full time? Is that a right they have if they want to stay home with their families? Does she feel a woman should enter full time into the workforce and demand equal right for pay or can she choose to work less than that if she feels her priorities are elsewhere?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's three questions. I would be interested in seeing the mini-survey of ethnic communities she says she conducted, because a survey is supposed to be scientific. I would also like to see from what perspective and in what order the questions were asked. We all know that survey results can vary greatly, depending on the way the question is asked and on the selection of participants.

Therefore, I am going to go back to the committee. We have heard a lot from ethnic communities, which all demand that the act be maintained, because they are one of the groups which has made the least progress. Therefore, I would like to see the mini-survey conducted by the hon. member, and we could perhaps analyze her constituents' answers scientifically. I would very much like to see it, but what I do know is that the ethnic communities which came before the committee said the opposite of what my colleague claims.

In reply to her second question, the percentages I quoted are from the Canadian public service which is already governed by the Employment Equity Act. I could bring to my colleague's attention that women are under-represented in management positions and that this was what drew my criticism. My colleague can cite other statistics, the widely accepted statistics still remain, and they lament the under-representation of women in management positions.

My colleague also raised the issue of a woman's choice to stay at home. I myself have nothing against a woman choosing to stay home and raise her children. I believe that it is not my place to dictate the daily lives of women. What I really want to see are balanced measures which promote the integration of various groups, which include women, and give them access to well-paid stable jobs and good working conditions. We all know that many women hold unstable jobs and that the expression "unstable job" means that they do not have access to their employer's benefit packages.

Thus, I could not agree more with women having the choice of staying home. However, should they decide to enter the workforce, both women and disadvantaged designated groups should be given every possible chance and access to measures permitting them to hold well-paid jobs and to be trusted and treated with respect by their employers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In consultation with the table officers I understand the rotation has been shifted a few times today. With the greatest respect to all members, I am looking for a speaker from the party whose allotted day it is. If someone from that party is seeking the floor, I will recognize them and then I will go to the government.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to the Reform Party's opposition day motion on employment equity.

The motion states:

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.

The Reform Party approaches the issue of employment equity from this principle of the equality of all Canadians. We believe all Canadians are equal regardless of what personal characteristics they possess such as race, ethnicity, sex or what part of the country they live in.

We believe in the equality of opportunity in the marketplace but realize that equality will not necessarily result in equality of results. The concept of our government sponsored employment equity philosophy takes a much different approach.

It seeks to identify specific groups that ostensibly have been discriminated against and are therefore considered disadvantaged. Specifically, it has identified the four groups, women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

I have a number of concerns about the concept of employment equity and about its practical implementation. I want to demonstrate employment equity as such is based on a number of flawed assumptions.

Of great concern to me is that the government purports to support the concept of the equality of all Canadians. Yet this very principle, employment equity, and its underlying philosophy fly directly in the face of the principle of true equality.

How can the principle of equality be respected if some groups are given preferential treatment in hiring, recruitment and promotion in the public or the private sector through employment equity laws and regulation?

This contradiction is best exhibited in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15(1):

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This is a statement in our Constitution on the equality of our citizens and the prohibition of discrimination based on certain characteristics. Yet the contradiction to that philosophy of employment equity is revealed in the next section of the charter, section 15(2):

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

How can the charter of rights and freedoms recognize the equality of Canadian citizens on one hand and then turn around and state that principle of equality does not apply under certain circumstances?

Some argue employment equity is needed because certain portions of our population have been historically disadvantaged. Let me discuss that for a moment.

Prior to 1967 most immigration into Canada was from Europe and caucasian in character. Since that time our immigration patterns have changed, to the better I am sure. Many immigrants from all parts of the world are high wage earners. Most visible minorities in Canada, because of government policies, are either immigrants or children of immigrants. Going back to the original philosophy, how then can they be deemed at an historic disadvantage?

Surveys have shown some visible minority groups are among our highest wage earners. Also, many come from highly advantaged, educated backgrounds and yet are promoted and protected by the employment equity legislation. Conversely, other identifiable groups, ones not included in the visible minority category, have low incomes and may face real discrimination in the marketplace. They are left out of the legislation. They are deemed less than equal because they are not part of what is defined in this group.

The government purports to put forward the concept of numerical goals and employment equity and will go to the wall to say that never are these things to be deemed as quotas or affirmative action.

I will take a few moments to review some of the historical context of the present debate for it sheds much light on the intention and direction of the present legislation.

As early as 1979 the Canada employment and immigration commission established its affirmative action directive as an advisory tool to the department. Then in 1983 the hon. member for Windsor West, then President of the Treasury Board, introduced a mandatory program of affirmative action in the public service. Even at the outset there was a determined refusal not to admit to the real meaning of racially based job quotas. As we hear him say from those days: "The numerical goals we will be introducing as part of the affirmative action are not quotas". Those words are still said today but do they really mean anything?

Of special interest is the 1984 report of the federal royal commission. Judge Abella was the chair and the only member of the commission which produced the report entitled "Equality in Employment". In it the term employment equity appeared for the first time. Abella rejected the older phrase affirmative action on clearly pragmatic grounds.

I quote from the report her reason for using the new term: "No great principle is sacrificed in exchanging phrases of disputed definitions for newer ones that may be more accurate and less destructive of reasoned debate". Obviously a pragmatic choice of words, and for that reason the term employment equity was invented and the term affirmative action was tossed aside.

In addition, the phrase numerical goals used in employment equity legislation is really a euphemism for quotas. Bill C-64, which was recently debated by the human rights commission, incorporates numerical goals or quotas. Clause 10(1)(d) requires employers to incorporate quotas within the employment equity plan. This clause reads that an employer shall establish short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in the designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce in which under-representation has been identified and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those goals.

Another illustration of the quota approach is the Treasury Board's annual report on employment equity in the public service. It outlines in some detail the philosophy of targets or quotas in all aspects of employment, in the recruitment, promotion and even the separation of employees from the employer. It is presented in pure numbers with percentages and totals broken down into a litany of categories. The problem with this approach is that the world is not so neatly configured. Numbers do not reflect the real world.

This leads to a third flat assumption of the employment equity philosophy. If these numerical goals or quotas are not met and consistent with the calculated diversity of our society it is therefore concluded there must be discrimination that is systemic in our society.

Let me discuss the concept of systemic discrimination. Underlying the Abella report and all subsequent legislation has been the conviction that racism in the form of systemic discrimination is rampant in our society.

Abella's report stated: "Non-whites all across Canada complained of racism. They undeniably face discrimination both overt and unjust". This report was from a commission that went across the country.

Who would present themselves to a committee such as that? Would people who are happy in their circumstance go out of their way to present? I do not think so. Perhaps even in this first statement of systemic discrimination we have a distortion.

Is Canada a racist country? Perhaps this would be the strongest argument for an affirmative action program as we see here. We have equity departments throughout the public service and the private sector and race relations councils where individuals come forward to attest to alleged discrimination and racism.

As I have mentioned, typically the people who come forward are self-selected individuals who address these committees. They are motivated by circumstance. Do we hear from the whole population? It is true racism does exist. I believe all societies have an element of racism to some degree. I also believe Canada is by far not the worst. Part of our opposition to this bill is in terms of guarding against a piece of legislation we believe would promote an attitude of racism in the sense of dividing people rather than bringing them together in our great society.

Is racism limited to only one race? Even as the media discusses this issue we hear the terms white and racist put together interchangeably. Even the term reverse discrimination which has been discussed today assumes discrimination goes only one way, from whites to non-whites. I reject that notion. If we look at racism in real terms it can be from one race toward any race. I do not think whites or other races have any particular claim to it.

Is racism real in Canada? It is an element in our society like in any other. Let me cite two reports. The Economic Council of Canada put out a report in 1991, "New Faces in a Crowd: Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration". It concluded Canada had been remarkably successful in assimilating immigrants from diverse backgrounds. It found there was no significant discrimination against immigrants and that tolerance toward immigrants was high and was found to be increasing.

Another report from the Economic Council of Canada in 1992, "Earnings of Immigrants: A Comparative Analysis", focused more on what immigrants were paid. It found unemployment among immigrants was actually lower than for Canadian born citizens. This report's central conclusion was there was no evidence of a systemic pay discrimination against immigrants on the basis of colour.

There is a necessity to recognize diversity in our society. The whole basis of employment equity rests on the raw numbers of diversity. It is argued it should be reflected in employment in the public sector and to a lesser extent in the private sector.

However, the diversity measured by employment equity is measured through a voluntary process called self-identification. Individuals must declare themselves as belonging to a particular group that makes them eligible for employment equity. This can be a very great problem with the proposed system. This information is accumulated primarily through the census of population data. For gender the process is a given, but the self-identification process begins to break down when determining who are visible minorities or who are persons with disabilities.

For instance, to determine if one is a member of a visible minority one has to go through a four-step process as defined by the employment equity data program established by Statistics Canada. Step No. 1: persons are asked which ethnic or cultural group their ancestors belonged to. They are even asked to mark or specify as many as applicable among 15 possible choices. Step No. 2: persons are asked in what country they were born; if Canada, what province or territory; if outside Canada, what other country. Step No. 3: a question is asked about the person's mother tongue. Step No. 4 attempts to group those the first three steps failed to classify.

The process is not foolproof. It does not produce accurate results. It is not precise. It is fully voluntary. Yet it is the foundation of employment equity.

The government uses self-identification for implementation of its employment equity in the public service and here too the process fails miserably. For example, a voluntary self-identification survey was recently sent to 1,700 employees of the House of Commons. Only 23 per cent returned the survey. What basis could the employer use to implement a policy such as employment equity?

There could be a number of other reasons that could explain alleged discrimination. Since self-identification is voluntary it will not be precise. The process, as I have mentioned, is not and should not be foolproof. There are social, cultural and educational explanations that may have an effect upon the disparities in society that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

A glaring example of the inadequacies of the voluntary self-identification program were illustrated in a letter I read recently in the Globe and Mail of February 28. I would like to read part of it:

Your editorial Time for a Debate on Employment Equity-argues that "Canadians who oppose affirmative action must fight it through the ordinary political process".

But there is a more effective way to fight affirmative action. Those who oppose it should simply indicate on their workforce surveys that they belong to all of the designated groups. If even 10 per cent of those who oppose affirmative action were to do so, then virtually every workforce would be found to be adequately represented for employment equity purposes. This would release employers from the obligation to meet quotas, allowing them to hire the most competent applicants regardless of biology.

Current legislation does not define membership in the designated groups-indeed, membership is mostly subjective. Employers are obligated to accept employees' and applicants' self-identification as being correct. Moreover, workplace surveys are meant to be confidential, and Canadian human rights legislation prohibits employers from requiring employees or job candidates to prove their biological status. So sabotaging the employment equity bureaucracy in the way suggested is arguably not illegal and is certainly without risk to either employees or employers.

Thus the problems associated with a statistical base such as voluntary self-identification cannot be resolved. Therefore the whole basis and foundation for employment equity is seriously flawed and this certainly illustrates it.

The Reform Party believes in the true equality of all Canadians regardless of their personal characteristics. Public opposition to the bill is seen in the upcoming Ontario election where two old line parties have moved closer to our position on the issue.

The government would like us to believe that affirmative action, as it would have it, would eliminate barriers and combat a broad based disadvantage to certain groups. However, I believe that legislative quota programs like employment equity actually confer benefits or impose disabilities because of race and formally divide people into racial definitions and racial mindsets.

Some of the strongest opponents I have heard regarding the legislation have been those familiar with the realities of similar programs elsewhere, such as in South Africa.

Legislated employment equity suggests to everyone, including the individual involved, that the reason they got the job was their race or disability and not their ability or aptitude. Thus this kind of legislation cheapens the accomplishments and efforts of individuals. It degrades individuals by conferring on them a definition of victimhood. It separates Canadians into competing subgroups while putting unnecessary burdens on our national economy and on our good business practice sense.

We have a history of chequered motives and subversive citizenship. We have a program that is based on flawed assumptions of systemic discrimination. We have a denial of a basic principle of merit with the introduction of quotas and numerical goals and coercion and government interference through reports, fines and intrusive government practices.

Our position as a country will best be served in the global economy by market demands in the places of employment. Our future and unity as a country will be best assured by ensuring true equality of Canadians, not by job quotas but by the equality of the personhood and the real abilities of all Canadians.

In summary, employment equity is seriously flawed and conceptually flawed in practice. I encourage Canadians to express their views on employment equity and Bill C-64 with which Parliament is currently dealing.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first by way of comment, with respect to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, let it be recorded that a list was submitted by the Reform Party and many people on the list declined the invitation to appear before the committee. It was no fault of the committee.

Second, even at the last minute some witnesses cancelled out. That again was beyond the control of the committee studying the employment equity bill.

Third, the member said on the steering committee that we would look at this in committee of the whole. To now fret over it after the fact I leave to the imagination of the House.

The member said equality of opportunities may not necessarily lead to equality of results. That is right. However she failed to ask the question: What if the cost of the inability to lead to equality of results is systemic discrimination? Would the member agree that the best approach would not be on an individual case by case basis but a systemic approach such as legislation and policy initiatives of government?

The member kept on referring to preferential hiring. This is the myth one perpetuates if one would like one's political agenda to win, but it is not being honest with Canadians. To say that it should only be based on the principle of merit and qualifications as though people in designated groups, women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and First Nations people have no qualifications and no merit.

Studies have shown that they have been discriminated against for decades. Why would the member continue to insist that numerical goals are the same as quotas? The bill before the Chamber states in subclause 30(1):

No compliance officer may give a direction under section 23 and no Tribunal may make an order under section 27 where that direction or order

(e) would impose a quota on an employer.

The bill is very clear that it is not about quota. If the Reform Party would only pose this question to the Canadian people, I am sure it would get the right answer.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer some of the questions.

I actually sat on the committee. I find it interesting the chair of the committee does not deny that 90 per cent of the witnesses supported the legislation and there were others who were asked. Of the 30-some people we suggested 4 came before the committee.

It may indeed have been the case that some could not come or that some cancelled out. We were not informed of that beforehand. The fact the government now indicates that 90 per cent of the committee supported legislation tells me it is using a number not representative of Canadians to support something for its own purposes. I find that objectionable. Those numbers do not reflect Canadian society.

There was a question asked about systemic discrimination. I find the term systemic discrimination quite objectionable. I tried in my speech to express that it is a word that supports the whole notion of employment equity but removes the necessity of proving there was any discrimination in a particular case.

It puts a blanket over a hiring practice. The claim of systemic discrimination allows an employer to discriminate against groups not within the group. It compares employees as a group with society as a group so that in individual cases there is no reality necessary in terms of discrimination. I do not believe discrimination is systemic. If there are individual cases of discrimination they should be brought forward as individual cases, as our motion states.

I did not deny there was merit in the categories included in the legislation. Our party has said that there has to be equality of opportunity. That means addressing education, advertising job positions equally and fairly and access to jobs for all groups designated or non-designated. Those are where government legislation and government initiatives should be taking place, not in determining the result.

As we give people access to these places, the marketplace will reflect the true reality of the Canadian people. That is what is important in the marketplace and for the good of the country.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.

I am pleased to rise today to address the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East. I cannot say I am surprised that the hon. member and his party have chosen to deplore the government's employment equity policy.

From the beginning of the hearings on Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, held by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the member and his party have been opposed to the principle and practice of employment equity. They have gone so far as to breach parliamentary tradition by going to the press with complaints about the bill before the beginning of clause by clause study of the bill by the committee.

Ostensibly the Reform Party was desperate to draw attention to its political agenda. Frustrated by the lack of media coverage of the press conference, it became more interested in dilatory tactics than substantive debate during clause by clause study of the bill.

I will now address point by point the motion before us. The Reform Party claims that employment equity is unnecessary. This could only be so if members opposite could show that the Canadian workplace proportionately reflects the demographics of qualified members of designated groups in the Canadian workforce: women, visible minorities, First Nations peoples and persons with disabilities. In fact documents show otherwise.

The Reform Party claims the policy is ineffective. A study done by the Conference Board of Canada on the impact of the existing legislation shows that the major impetus for employment equity initiatives by employers was the passage of the 1986 Employment Equity Act.

The Reform Party claims the policy is unpopular. I counter that witnesses before the committee studying the new employment equity legislation, representing thousands and thousands of Canadians, were nearly unanimous in their praise of the thrust and strength of the legislation.

Moreover, it should be noted that equity in employment is about justice, fairness, human decency and human dignity. Employment equity as a policy and as a law is for all and benefits all Canadians, workers and employers alike.

The Reform Party claims employment equity is intrusive. I would counter that more than 90 per cent of the witnesses that appeared before the committee welcomed the policy, welcomed the legislation and said that it made good business sense.

Employers which appeared as witnesses included the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and many more. Witnesses from labour included the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance, la Confédération des syndicats nationaux among others. Designated groups which appeared as witnesses included Women in Trades and Technology, the Assembly of First Nations, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council among others. These wit-

nesses; employers, labour and designated groups, all welcomed the employment equity policy of the government.

It should be noted that the non-designated group continues to be hired and accounts for 55 per cent of the workforce according to the latest figures from Statistics Canada.

The Reform Party claims that employment equity is discriminatory. I counter that the bill explicitly aims to achieve equality. Equality is the antithesis of discrimination.

The purpose of this act "is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability". The purpose is clearly stated in clause 2 of Bill C-64. Therefore, I highly recommend that the Reform Party once more read the clause, if not the entire bill. In fact, discrimination in hiring and promotion is the very injustice the employment equity policy and the attendant legislation seek to redress.

The Reform Party moves that "this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit". I am pleased that at least on this score the Reform Party has it right. It pays once in a while for the Reform Party to heed government legislation and government advice.

Bill C-64, the employment equity legislation which is before the Chamber, specifically stipulates in clauses 6(b) and (c) that the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons and to ensure that merit is fulfilled.

The Reform Party claims that discriminatory employment practices could be more vigorously pursued on an individual case by case basis. That is the same type of logic which says, "We do not need more crime prevention; what we need is more police action after crimes are committed. Forget preventing crime, policing is all that counts. Catch the rascals and lock them up". In effect that is the logic of the Reform Party. However, I am pleased to say it is not the policy of the government. I am confident it is not the belief of the vast majority of Canadians.

I counter that a more appropriate approach where systemic barriers to fair hiring practices still exist would be by way of legislation and other government policy initiatives such as education and training as was indicated by the Reform Party. However, education and training alone are not enough.

Francine Arsenault, as chairwoman of the provincial organizations on the handicapped, once said:

Disabled Canadians and other disadvantaged groups have worked long and hard to improve our appalling rate of representation in Canada's workplace. We have tried education and awareness programs. We have tried fostering goodwill, yet little has changed. The real causes of discrimination are not individuals but inflexible systems.

I pause here to call the minds and hearts of the Reform Party members to this observation in the hope that they will change their minds and hearts and withdraw the motion.

Employment equity legislation expresses the will of the government that equity in employment is a priority and a right for all Canadians qualified for a job, irrespective of race, gender, origin or presence of disability.

How ironic and unfortunate that the motion from the Reform Party has been introduced at this time when we are celebrating National Access Awareness Week. This is a week during which we specifically focus on the barriers which have prevented full participation of persons with disabilities in community life, including the workplace.

This is a week during which we reaffirm as a nation our belief in equality of opportunities and results for all. This is a week during which we resolve as a nation that we shall tear down the barriers that limit full participation of all persons and supply the necessary tools, including legislation, to facilitate equity in employment. I ask, where is the heart of the Reform Party?

I say to the Reform Party, fear not reverse discrimination, fear not employment equity policy, fear not employment equity legislation, but fear that equity in employment for women, visible minorities, First Nations people and persons with disabilities remains an elusive national dream.

In conclusion, Canada shall continue to aspire at all costs and work hard to realize this national dream.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fools because they may not follow along with the presentation of my hon. colleague across the way.

A Gallup poll published in 1993 reflects on the comments this gentleman has made. It showed that 74 per cent of Canadians opposed government employment equity programs. The Ontario government advertised a job vacancy in a government newspaper with the explanation that the job competition was limited to the following employment equity designated groups. This is where Bill C-64 is going to take this country. The designated groups were aboriginal peoples, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women. In other words, who is excluded? That was in a government advertisement. Is this where employment equity is going to take us?

I would like this member's comments on the following two studies. These studies were done in the labour market where it was clearly indicated that no discrimination took place. The first study was conducted by Arnold deSilva of the Economic Council of Canada. On page 34 of the study he concluded: "The evidence goes against the view that there is systematic discrimination against immigrants on the basis of colour". On page 37,

the summary concludes: "Persons who came from the third world regions but who arrived here young enough to obtain all their education and experience in Canada performed as well as native born Canadians in nearly all the cases". This study was conducted in 1992.

The results of another study by Daniel Boothman are: "The results of our job loss model show that women are less likely to lose jobs than men, all else being equal. Visible minority status had no significant effect on the probability of job loss".

Another point on page 50 states: "Being a woman increases the probability of promotion in the model. This effect is significant at the 10 per cent level. Visible minority status had no significant effect".

In the final statement: "In closing, this study found no strong evidence or a disadvantage for women and visible minorities in movement between jobs".

I would like to ask the member if he has studied and recorded these views in his presentation.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot be fooled. I have faith in our people.

The Reform Party has to be sure it has seen the questionnaire, the subquestions and whether the explanations have been given very well. That not being done, I will not comment further on that point.

Second, he alluded to advertisements being posted limiting hiring to certain designated groups. This is against the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is not the intent of the legislation. Bill C-64 will not condone such advertising. If the member has knowledge of that he has an obligation to report it to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and file a proper complaint. I will be with him challenging that kind of advertising.

The last point is that there is no discrimination now in the workforce according to the study which I have not seen. I will admit for the sake of argument in his reading of this that there has been no discrimination against visible minorities. Let us assume for the sake of argument it is a statement of fact. He said the study was done in 1992. The present law was passed in 1986.

My conclusion is the law is working. Let us keep it to sustain positive equality in Canada.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident from any survey of any group of people that there is no support for the government's bill among the population at large. Survey after survey comes back stating that 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to bills of this type.

I ask the member who is the chairman of the committee specifically about some things that happened there. Could this be the reason why the government, in an agreement with the two opposition parties, decided to take the bill after first reading directly to committee?

The opposition parties thought there was going to be a fair opportunity to review the bill on a clause by clause basis. Once they got into committee they found that the chairman had decided that debate was going to be restricted to five minutes per clause which is completely out of touch with reality. Is this a fair and open way to study legislation or is it just a way for the government to slide things by so that the 80 per cent of Canadians who are opposed to this bill do not know that the government is sliding this one by them?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental rule in law. If one relies on hearsay it is very dangerous. It is not my recollection that this member had attended a meeting of our committee. Perhaps I missed one.

Second, for him to say the chair decided on a five-minute limit to debate on clause by clause, please check the record.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Liberal members decided.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. The time has expired for questions and comments. I would add that we are treading very close to the line in terms of dealing with the actual motion of the Reform Party today and the business of the committee of the House. I would like to remind members to be somewhat judicious. Resuming debate.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate today. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for sharing his time with me.

It is a great honour to rise in the House to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East which seeks to condemn the government for its policies in the area of employment equity, in particular Bill C-64. To be honest, I find the hon. member's motion hard to fathom since it flies in the face of two of the most cherished core values we hold as Canadians, justice and equality.

The member of the opposition is correct in one regard, namely that this government is deeply committed to assuring equality of opportunity for all Canadians. This should come as no surprise for our red book clearly states that we seek a country where all of us see ourselves as contributors and participants and not liabilities and dependants. It further underlines our commitment to building a Canada characterized by integrity, compassion and competence.

Cherishing those values as we do, it is little wonder we would support employment equity which is, after all, simply a tool for assuring fairness in daily life. That is what we seek to do in Bill C-64.

Why is the bill needed? While some progress has been made by the existing Employment Equity Act, recent statistics indicate that much remains to be done. 1993 actually saw the number of employees covered under the Employment Equity Act drop by 4.27 per cent. That is almost 26,000 people. Much of this was the result of the layoffs which flowed from the recent economic downturn from which we have just emerged. Sadly, members of the designated groups covered by Bill C-64 were often the hardest hit.

While the number of people in designated groups increased, fewer of them found themselves in the labour market. Among those who did, most did not see the wage gains and promotional opportunities enjoyed by other working Canadians.

Many women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities still find themselves on the bottom rung of the economic and social ladder. Of course this is not just their problem. Rather, it is a problem for all of us since restricting their participation in the economic life of our country also damages the competitiveness of Canadian business.

It is increasingly obvious that a diverse workforce benefits companies by providing them with improved access to a greater number of qualified people. Indeed many businesses now realize that recruiting, promoting and retraining people who are representative of the Canadian population helps them provide better and more responsive client service since diverse experience and perspectives are a bonus, not a burden.

How does this bill present a balanced approach? Contrary to what the hon. member and other members of his party might think, the bill before us is not some piece of wild-eyed radicalism totally divorced from the realities of economic life. Rather it is a moderate and thoughtful document which seeks to promote equal opportunity in the workplace without imposing an onerous regulatory environment on businesses that are already hard pressed in the increasingly competitive global marketplace.

This balanced approach can be seen in all of the amendments contained in the bill. For instance, while the act seeks to encourage employers to address under-representation by members of designated groups, it does not require them to hire unqualified people, create new positions, create undue hardship or contradict the merit principle.

Likewise, it does not impose a quota system as has occurred in other jurisdictions. While we have listened to representatives of designated groups who have called for an effective enforcement mechanism, we have also listened to business representatives who have asked that we not bury them under a mass of new regulations and paper burden. We have developed a series of amendments which combine practicality with justice. As a result, we are all winners.

At the same time, many of the amendments contained in the bill represent little more than housekeeping. They will simply extend to the public sector those requirements which have already been placed on the private sector. This is only fair.

Finally, the act will broaden the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to allow it to conduct audits of public and private sector employers in order to verify and gain compliance with the act. Even here we are ensuring a balance with the establishment of the employment equity review tribunal.

Canadians are justly proud of the core values which are at the heart of our country. Central to our value system is a concern for ensuring equal opportunity and justice for all Canadians. The existing Employment Equity Act passed in 1986 has led to real progress in ensuring greater equality of employment. Still, much remains to be done. The act before us represents an important step forward in assuring that all Canadians can enjoy equal opportunity in employment and promotion. At the same time it seeks to provide a vital balance between idealism and economic reality.

The government's employment equity policies are not about intrusiveness, discrimination or adding to the cost burden to Canadian business as the hon. member's motion suggests. Rather they are about fairness, about the government's commitment to ensuring 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 well-being of Canada.

Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a catalyst for progress in the workplace and a boost to the competitiveness of Canadian companies in an increasingly demanding global economy. Most of all, it is about putting into practice the values that make us Canadian: fairness, justice and equality for all. It is for this reason that I cannot support the motion, but I will be supporting the legislation before the House and would encourage all members to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.

Obviously there is no time to get into the whole bill but he mentioned that numerical targets were not quotas, that we were not to worry because this was not about quotas.

Lyn McLeod said in the leader's debate with Bob Rae in Ontario on May 18 that numerical goals are quotas, pure and simple. I would like to know whether he agrees with the Liberal

leader of Ontario who says that numerical targets are merely a euphemism for quotas.

The RCMP do not call them quotas but this year the RCMP is hiring 426 people. One hundred and twenty-five will be from visible minorities, 125 will be females, 95 will be aboriginal and the rest can be from society in general. Does the hon. member think those are quotas or does he think they are something other than quotas? They sound like quotas to me.

I have just the two questions. Does he agree with Lyn McLeod and does he think the numbers I quoted from the RCMP sound like quotas?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely surprised by the inability of the member's party to address the question of the need for some collective redress to the lack of representation.

I am an Atlantic Canadian. We have always believed a little bit that in the nation we are on the outside. I have some sympathy for those people who feel that the power structures at play do not always work in their favour.

Everything I have read and have heard expressed by the member's party in terms of where they were born speaks to expressions like western alienation and so on. It seems to me there should be some affinity between the member and his party and those people for whom the system just does not work as well as it does for others. I think it is political posturing on the part of the member to draw in someone else's comments in some other debate.

Ultimately this is about a fundamental principle. We have to understand that the system does not work equally for everybody. I have heard it said by many people in the member's party that is the case and that therefore certain actions have to be taken. I find it unfortunate that a member representing a party that speaks of this often would deny the same access to people for whom the system obviously does not work as well as it does for someone like me, a seventh generation, white, male Canadian.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has still left the question unanswered as to whether we have quotas or whether we are simply looking at loosely defined numerical goals.

I would like to enlarge on this just a little. I honestly believe that in areas where we have not had these kinds of programs, employment equity, quota systems, whatever you call it, that at least in the area where I come from in Alberta, the number of people employed in large organizations is roughly proportional to the number of people who are there from the different groups. It is just a rough observation which I think is true.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Through the eyes of the observer.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

No, I am sorry, I believe it is true.

I would like the member to answer this question. Are quotas the same as numerical goals? If not, how are they different?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the issue of quotas, targets and so on. In a previous life I was involved in the official languages policy in the province of New Brunswick. A lot of the attempts made here to try and characterize efforts to collectively address the systemic weakness are always characterized this way. There are always attempts to fix positions so they can then be thrown back in the face of the government.

The answer is no. There is an objective, you try to meet but it is not a quota.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. I understand you will be splitting your time. Could you indicate that to the chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not use the 20 minutes.

I welcome this opportunity to rise in debate and support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East.

I am becoming more and more concerned about the direction in which the government is taking Canada. The Liberal government seems to think that it can legislate Canadian values and social change. History proves that imposed solutions do not gain broad acceptance. They are viewed with suspicion.

From the mail I receive, the mindset that dominates Ottawa's policy shifts does not appear to reflect the values or convictions of most Canadians living outside a few metropolitan centres. In fact, I am not even sure it reflects the views of most people living in Toronto or Ottawa.

This government is promoting the idea that society is responsible for what people do with their lives. Somehow personal achievement no longer has anything to do with individual merit, initiative or effort but has more to do with whether one falls into this government's definition of a group it has singled out for special treatment. This is a misguided attempt to right past wrongs. When I was young I was taught that two wrongs do not make a right. Evidently Liberals have not learned that lesson.

Reform believes in equality of opportunity. Given the same educational and employment opportunities, whether an individual succeeds should be largely up to them. Each person must

accept responsibility for what they choose to do with their life, be it pursuing a life of crime or having a lower standard of living while they put themselves through university. When they get out of school they have a right to expect equal treatment when they look for work. Preferential treatment on the basis of your skin colour is just as racist as discrimination. Employment equity is by definition discrimination and therefore against the law.

Social change cannot be legislated. Previous Liberal attempts at social engineering have been disastrous and have created greater divisiveness in Canadian society. Past Liberal legislation gave us multiculturalism which promotes our differences instead of our similarities. It makes us hyphenated Canadians and asks us to define ourselves in terms of skin colour, country of our ancestors or, if all other categorizations fail, language. We are not allowed to be just Canadian. The government does not believe such a person exists.

Now that multiculturalism has made us focus on our differences the government wants to institutionalize inequality and preferential treatment. It wants to further divide the workforce with a quota system that will replicate an artificial division of the Canadian people based on arbitrary characteristics unrelated to their ability to do the job. Equity is not equality.

The hon. member for Western Arctic said earlier today special treatment is not a departure from equality. How can special treatment of entire designated groups lead to equality? Special treatment by its very nature is not equality.

The same member said same treatment does not create equality. I agree with that but not for the same reasons she said. Canadians should be guaranteed equal opportunities. These include education, equal employment opportunities and the right not to be discriminated against for reasons unrelated to their qualifications.

As the member must agree, given her own achievements, even when we all receive the same treatment we do not all follow the same paths in life. We do not end up running a corner bakery or a multinational corporation, at least not all of us. We are different and we do not all share the same goals. Siblings end up in entirely different lines of work and levels of employment despite the same treatment. Equal opportunity does not always lead to equal results.

Every time the government decides there is a problem it tries to solve it with more government regulations and inappropriate misguided legislation. We see the same philosophy of over regulation in the Liberal approach to crime control. Instead of specifically targeting gun smugglers and criminals who misuse firearms the government will force all gun owners to register. This shotgun approach to problems does not work. It creates more jobs for bean counters while the government desperately hopes a criminal will register a gun or in the case of employment equity a prejudiced employer will incriminate themselves when filling out paper work.

I completely support the elimination of discrimination but we cannot legislate attitudes and we cannot create equality through legislation. Go after the law breakers. Do not make more rules and red tape that do not directly address the problem. Social engineering does not work.

Canadians want equality, not more groups with special rights and privileges. Canadians want to end discrimination, not extend it on a scale only the Liberal government could conceive. Canadians want to succeed based on their personal merit and achievements, not on the colour of their skin or some other arbitrary classification the government has decided on.

A policy of employment equity will lead to inequality. It will increase intolerance in our society and it will lead to greater misunderstandings between people. The elimination of intolerance and discrimination in society is a desirable objection.

I question the way the government is going about it. I see the end result as more intolerance. With employment equity how will anyone in a designated group ever be certain they got where they did because of their own efforts and hard work? Even if they know they earned every promotion and every raise, how do they convince jealous naysayers? When someone is bypassed for a promotion will they believe it is because the other person deserved it or will they blame employment equity? Will employers be forced to defend every decision they make?

With employment equity every promotion will be viewed with suspicion, whether it is because the person was in a designated group and other employees challenged their qualifications or because the person was not in a designated group and the government wants to know why the company did not promote a designated person instead.

Private industry should have the right to hire whomever it wants. However, I fully support prosecution where there is evidence of systemic discrimination. No one should face discrimination in the workforce. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of personal merit. While it is true we have not completely stamped out prejudice, there are other ways of dealing with unfair hiring practices besides enforcing a quota system. We should enforce laws which specifically target people who engage in discriminatory hiring practices or employment conditions.

By promoting employment equity the Liberal government has admitted it has no faith these designated groups can make it on merit alone and so it will coerce companies using quotas and monetary penalties. Will such measures lead to even more intolerance as a few disgruntled workers wrongly seize on employment equity as the reason they were bypassed for a raise they thought they deserved?

Once again the government is promoting disunity by highlighting differences instead of similarities. By forcing employees to self-identify as a member of a designated group the government perpetuates differences and, more important, the perception of differences. An employment equity program forces people to focus on the very things the government says it is trying to eliminate. We want our society to disregard characteristics not relevant to someone's ability to do their job, but the government wants employers to emphasize those characteristics as somehow related to whether someone should get a promotion.

Companies will begin to look at employees as a number on the way to fulfilling a particular quota, not as individual human beings with dreams, families and abilities which transcend the designation the Liberal government has imposed on them. As the hon. member for Halifax stated earlier today in the House, we cannot legislate attitudes. That is our point.

Canadians would support the elimination of discrimination and prejudice in the workplace but they cannot support a costly social engineering project which will institutionalize discrimination and promote employment opportunities based on physical attributes. Employment equity is not workable. It can lead only to more intolerance and misunderstanding.

It is reassuring to see the government's commitment to creating a fair job market. All Canadians want a level playing field on which excellence is promoted. However, a look at the government's current legislation shows a fundamental weakness. It stops one step short of the top. One would expect the government would seek to lead by example, so it is somewhat baffling that Bill C-64 applies to every government department except the office of the Prime Minister.

If the House really sees affirmative action as a way to promote excellence, one would think it would rush to embrace its application in the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister's office plays a large role not only in shaping the agenda of government and of Parliament but in shaping public opinion. If the government really believes affirmative action programs attract personnel of the highest calibre, it naturally follows the principles of Bill C-64 should apply to the Prime Minister's office.

Clause 4(1)(b) of the bill seeks to apply affirmative action to the portions of the Public Service of Canada set out in part I of schedule 1 to the Public Service Relations Act. Schedule 1 is a fairly inclusive list of government departments and agencies and includes the office of the governor general's secretary, which provides policy and program assistance in the office of His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada. It includes the privy council office, which provides policy advice and analysis to the office of the Prime Minister and to cabinet.

When I note Bill C-64 applies to the office of the governor general's secretary and to the privy council office, I am sure it must be simply an oversight that the Prime Minister's office is not covered.

Members will surely understand that if we intend to ensure the promotion of true equity in the workplace we must start at the top. If it is our goal to show Canadians that government now holds high the torch of equality, what better way than to apply Bill C-64 to the Prime Minister's office? Applying Bill C-64 to the Prime Minister's office would show all Canadians leadership truly starts at the top.

The Prime Minister's office could serve as an example to other departments in showing how an enlightened affirmative action program could contribute to an enhanced work environment, foster harmonious workplace relations and harness the benefits proponent of the increased employment diversity promise.

The application of Bill C-64 to the PMO would further produce a number of side benefits. It would give the Prime Minister a true hands on experience both in devising and implementing a productive affirmative action strategy in a medium sized $5.5-odd million office. The Prime Minister's office would get a true first hand view of the increased administrative burden, if any, caused by this act. That experience would undoubtedly prove useful if further amendments to this bill were ever needed. Further participation by the Prime Minister's office would give the Prime Minister enhanced credibility when selling Bill C-64 to Canadian employers.

The Prime Minister would get valuable insight into the practical benefits and, more important, the challenges of Bill C-64. It is so easy for Parliamentarians to pass a law that applies to everyone but ourselves. The business maxim of walk the talk speaks to the need for managers to roll up their sleeves and do some of the dirty work.

On one hand there is a real sense of leadership when one's boss shows he or she is willing to do the same job as the labourer or technician. More important, many company presidents and CEOs have found that actually spending a day in the shoes of the worker has exposed them to challenges and benefits of the line, so to speak, in very tangible ways. Therefore by way of analogy this proposal makes sound business sense.

Participation by the Prime Minister's office would show all Canadians who have experienced discrimination in employment that they have a friend at the top. Due to the bill's application to the Prime Minister's office all Canadians would see their government really believes in the right of the disadvantaged to participate in the workforce.

Earlier I mentioned how the Prime Minister's office plays a large role not only in shaping the agenda of government and of Parliament but in shaping Canadian public opinion. Given this,

the Liberals should amend the bill and give the disadvantaged an increased voice at the top which could play a vital role in reducing many of the so-called systemic barriers many Canadians face in the job market.

If they will not include the PMO what example are they showing? If the Prime Minister's office is to be spared, why not all private firms with budgets smaller than $5 million? How can we as politicians mandate change on Canadians which we would shirk from imposing on ourselves? How can we deal with this do as I say, not as I do attitude?

Without the practical experience of Bill C-64 working in the PMO how can we tell Canadian employers we are all working together? How can we reverse discrimination in the hearts of Canadians when the Prime Minister's office holds out a "not welcome here" sign?

Reformers believe this "not in my backyard" philosophy is a national curse. The House must show Canadians Bill C-64 has been well thought out, is well intended and will be well managed at every stage. Application of the bill to the Prime Minister's office might ensure that, or it might prove the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by the member for Prince George-Peace River.

It will be interesting to see if anybody grabs the bait. It was mentioned somewhat in committee, just tossed out as an idea. We will see if anybody picks up on the suggestion for the Prime Minister's office sometime between now and when the bill gets muscled through Parliament .Gratefully, I will not have to hold my breath on that one, I do not think.

I do have a couple of questions for the member. Earlier today we heard from the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women that she was offended that I would talk about hyphenated Canadians. The people opposite know that if any party is against the term hyphenated Canadians it is the Reform Party. We say all Canadians should be treated equally. We do not care whether you are a recent immigrant, third generation or an aboriginal person. We think all people should be treated equally. Definitely the idea of hyphenated Canadians is repugnant to us.

I would like to get the member's opinion and check on what the member is hearing back home in northern British Columbia. The last census of Canadians that StatsCan brought forward found there were over 700,000 Canadians who refused to identify themselves as anything other than Canadian. They would say: "I am not a hyphenated Canadian of any kind. I am just a Canadian".

[An hon. member]

Good for them.

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

I was probably one of them on that census. I am sure that 700,000 and some refused to say: "I am an English Canadian, a French Canadian or a native Canadian". They just said: "I am Canadian. That is all that I am".

StatsCan is now going to change its forms to make sure this does not happen again. It is going to make sure Canadians put down an ethnic background so that we can get more statistical information on which to base things like employment equity.

In the member's riding in northern British Columbia do people there like to be known as Peace River Canadians, Prince George Canadians, or do they generally just approach it as straight, old Canadians? I would like the member's opinion on whether he thinks this trend is an up and coming thing in Peace River or whether it is kind of passé.