It has been said by the other side that people will feel stigmatized. Let me respond to that. Somebody just referred to hiring in the RCMP. An earlier speaker laid out all kinds of figures and asked for a response.
The fact is that in the year the member quoted, and the member knows that very well because the information was given to him by the human rights commissioner, 65 per cent of hirings in the RCMP were white, able bodied males even though they are not even half of the Canadian population. Of course the member chose not to use that figure. Two-thirds of hirings continue to be white, able bodied males which members on the other side have tended to suggest in today's debate are going to be disadvantaged by employment equity.
Another point which has been made by the opposite side is that people will feel stigmatized. People feel stigmatized right now. People feel stigmatized when they come into a job in the public service with the best qualifications and after 25 years have not progressed.
People feel stigmatized when they are in clerical positions, 80 per cent of which are occupied by women. They see that women do not even rise to the upper levels of the clerical category. They are bypassed by others who are no more qualified but just happen not to be female.
People feel stigmatized by the current situation which does not allow them to be hired, promoted or given advancement opportunities on the basis of their merit. They see themselves categorized and kept at a lower level because they do not fit the traditional model of who will succeed in our society.
Finally, I come to the matter of merit. Employment equity is not the denial of the merit principle but the fulfilment of the merit principle. The legislation the committee has been dealing with is very clear about this. People should be hired solely on the basis of merit. Employment should be colour blind, gender blind and size blind. It should only look at what a person is capable of doing.
The facts are clear that has not been the pattern in Canadian employment. Let me give some facts. Members of the designated groups continue to be at a distinct disadvantage in the workplace. Far from being a threat to those who complain of reverse discrimination, women, aboriginal peoples, visible minority members and persons with disabilities still lag far behind in initial hiring, promotion opportunity and pay rates.
In March, Statistics Canada reported that the primary reason women earn far less money than men, just 78 per cent of what their male colleagues earn, is blatant discrimination. Even factoring in work experience, education and demographics, there is no explanation for the wage gap other than gender bias.
What other than prejudice can explain the fact that persons with disabilities experience an unemployment rate twice the national average? Is it less qualification or less education? No, it is not. The unemployment rate of persons with disabilities with university degrees is more than twice that of white males with the same qualifications.
These are facts I know the other side does not want to hear but it will hear them. Even among those who are working the perception seems to be that people with disabilities are capable only of clerical, sales and service jobs. Eighteen per cent of university educated, physically challenged workers are in those occupations compared with just 11 per cent of white, able bodied males with university degrees.
Statistics show there are many qualified members of designated groups. Visible minorities are better educated than Canadians in general, not less educated. Eighteen per cent have at least a university degree compared with 11 per cent of the Canadian population.
While visible minorities represent 8.8 per cent of the population over 15 years of age, in 1990 they accounted for almost 11 per cent of the university graduates. They earned 13 per cent of the masters degrees, 20 per cent of the doctorate degrees and yet too few of these highly educated, highly skilled potential workers are offered jobs. Their hiring rates have actually decreased steadily since 1990 from 10.4 per cent to just 8.4 per cent. Last year in the public service alone 11 per cent of applicants were a visible minority but represented only 2.7 per cent of hirings.
Aboriginal people, surely among the most disadvantaged of any group, are also too often shut out of the job market. Despite the fact that more aboriginal people than ever before are university educated their unemployment rate stands at 7 per cent, almost double the rate for white males with university degrees.
These are the tip of the iceberg of the statistics that could be quoted today. It is interesting that the vast majority of those who testified before the standing committee, including employers who have been under the Employment Equity Act for eight years now, describe employment equity as a sensible and balanced measure. Even the few who oppose the draft legislation did not resort to the sort of inflammatory and misrepresentational language found in this resolution and in the debate.
Canadians do have an excellent understanding of what equality is all about. They appreciate that for there to be a harmonious and well balanced society all its members must have an opportunity to contribute as well as share in the benefits. That is what employment equity is all about.
The justification behind employment equity is that it permits people to be given equal consideration when employment possibilities arise. Its aim is not to give privilege or advantage to anyone in the selection of candidates for employment. To say otherwise indicates a complete misunderstanding of the principles concerned and the way it works.
The fundamental aim of employment equity is to ensure no one is denied access to a fair chance at employment and promotion opportunities for reasons unrelated to abilities. To claim otherwise represents either a serious misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Employment equity exists to identify current disadvantages in the employment system for the benefit of all Canadians and to provide fair and equal employment opportunities. To pretend fairness and equality are fully operational in employment in Canada today is simply to ignore the facts.
Employment equity seeks to achieve the diversity in the workplace found in society. That involves the removal of barriers to employment opportunities. These barriers are most often not deliberate and are frequently buried in systems and long standing practices. Employment equity seeks to eliminate what is called the adverse effect which flows from conditions of requirements for employment that are not necessary and not intended to discriminate but do have a discriminatory effect.
The other aspect of employment equity is to put in place measures which encourage equitable access to opportunities for employment and advancement. This may mean training positions so those who are disadvantaged can compete on an equal footing. It is important for sound management that full use be made of all human resources available.
Unfortunately what we have been doing by having a less than equitable workplace both in the private sector and in the public sector is denying the Canadian economy and the public service the opportunity for the very best to be hired, to be trained, to be developed, to serve in the highest positions they can and to provide the very best to the private sector and the public sector so that both can excel.
We must remember that the make-up of Canada's labour force is in a state of constant flux. Major demographic changes are helping to create an increasingly heterogenous labour force. Women, native people, people with a disability and members of visible minorities now represent the vast majority of new arrivals on the labour market.
If we are not making full use of the full diversity of our growing workforce, we are handicapping ourselves as a nation. It has been convincingly demonstrated that diversity in the workplace makes good business sense. Witnesses who appeared before the human rights committee reasserted this; witnesses who found employment equity to be an advantage to them in improving their human resources practices. Experts have long considered workforce diversity as a competitive advantage in today's global economy. It leads to increased productivity. It is to the benefit of companies and governments to remove the barriers to the full development of diversity in the workforce.
As I said earlier, it is important to remember that although we tend to speak of diversity in terms of groups the focus is on the individual. It is not the group which is recruited as a filing clerk, it is the individual. However it is not necessarily the individual who is denied promotion opportunities. The individual may be constrained because they happen to belong to a particular group. Surely we all want to change that in society and in our places of employment.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's motion presupposes that employment equity follows selection on the basis of criteria other than merit. Allow me to state that this is not the case.
This is about a truly merit based system. For 75 years we have prided ourselves in this country and in our public service on having a merit based system designed to ensure people are hired based on their ability to do the job. Had we had a truly merit based system we would not have to worry about employment equity.
I will be happy when we no longer need an employment equity law. I will be happy when I can say that anybody has a fair and equal opportunity to compete based only on their ability to do the job. Unfortunately that is not the kind of world we have and certainly not the kind of public service we have. That is why I believe it is important to expand the Employment Equity Act.
Really that is what is being done. We are not introducing anything new. We are making some administrative changes to employment equity. The big thing we are doing is applying it to the public service. That is only fair and just.
