Debates of May 16th, 1996

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22 I asked the Minister of Labour when he intended to proclaim Bill C-64, the new Employment Equity Act.

Although this bill was passed by Parliament on December 15, 1995, it is still not in force. Worse still, according to the bill, it will only come into force one year after proclamation.

I want to remind the House that in 1983, the Trudeau government appointed the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment under Judge Rosalie Abella. This royal commission reported in 1984 to the new Mulroney government.

The Abella commission recommended mandatory employment equity legislation for both the federally regulated private sector and the federal public service sector. In response, the Conservative government brought in the existing Employment Equity Act but it did not accept all of Abella's recommendations. That law did not cover the federal public service, and applied only to firms with more than 100 employees. Worse still, the employment equity requirements in the act were not enforceable.

The Liberal opposition at that time strongly criticized the government on those grounds. As a result, once back in government in 1994, the new Liberal administration, to complete the work started 10 years before, introduced Bill C-64 to include the public sector and to set up a practical enforcement mechanism.

After lengthy committee hearings and parliamentary debate, the bill was finally passed December 15, 1995. Almost six months later it is still not proclaimed.

At a recent meeting of the human rights committee on April 18, the commissioner for human rights made a strong case for proclaiming this bill as soon as possible. He pointed out that there was still too much systemic discrimination and that, according to the provisions of the bill, it would only come into application one year after proclamation which would be at the earliest in 1997.

Once again I urge the government to proclaim this bill, these important improvements to employment equity, as soon as possible.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, was adopted by this Parliament and given royal assent at the end of the last session. The new act clarifies existing employers' obligations and actually reduces their administrative burden.

Employers under the act must identify and remove employment barriers that prevent women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities from progressing in the workplace.

I would like to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Labour and his officials have been working in close consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission to ensure that the Employment Equity Act can be put into force in the shortest timeframe possible.

However, since the new act leaves a number of details to regulation, we want to ensure that employers under the act have a clear understanding of the regulatory requirements and have ample lead time to make any changes that may be required to comply with these regulations.

In pursuit of this commitment, HRDC officials are holding consultations with employers, joint employer and labour organizations and designated group representatives and associations throughout the month of May.

Given the requirements of the regulatory process, we expect that the Employment Equity Act will come into force in mid-fall of this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to go into a little more detail about the question which I put to the minister responsible for the federal public service in mid-April.

I asked a question regarding the downsizing of the public service because I believe that there is an area in this exercise where we as a government can address a situation that would benefit those involved. In short, I believe there are things that we can do.

First, we must recognize that during the beginning of this three-year program the attraction to packages being offered was easy to manage. There were many individuals who were quite willingly accepting them. As we move closer to the end of the exercise it must be getting more and more difficult to find workers willing to accept the offer. I want to urge the department to invest as much discretion as possible in local managers so that they will have the opportunity and the flexibility which they need to treat people in as humane a fashion as possible.

I am aware there are those who accepted packages in the initial stages. That was done in good faith. However, we must be prepared to reassess our own rules if we are going to continue to attract people at the same rate as we have in the past.

We must be motivated to find the fairest possible solutions to the many problems that may arise and the local managers are in the best place to do that.

Also we must realize that funding for non-governmental organizations as one possible employer has been reduced along with many other areas where federal public servants may have found alternate work. It is therefore incumbent on the government to be as open as possible to alternatives suggested by local managers on adjustments to the federal public service work week or any other ideas which would generate more jobs. They must be considered. I believe that is our contribution in this exercise.

In conclusion, I want the government to recognize that the public service has participated quite graciously in this exercise and we must be willing, as a government, to listen to them and to give the local managers the flexibility they need to do the downsizing properly.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government will be vigilant to minimize the effects of downsizing on the affected employees during the remainder of the program review implementation.

The government stated at the very beginning of this process that it was its intention to be fair to its employees.

It introduced the early retirement incentive and the early departure incentive programs in order to facilitate the transition of employees to retirement or to other employment outside the public service. These programs have been successful in achieving these ends.

As can be seen in the quarterly reports on downsizing, 4,715 employees had taken the ERI and 4,323 had taken either the EDI or its equivalent, the civilian reduction program in the Department of National Defence, up to the end of December of last year.

The early retirement incentive program will be available until March 31, 1998. The EDI program will be available until June 22, 1998.

We also introduced a program which allows employees who wish to leave the public service to switch with employees who wish to stay. This program has been a big success in my view, since it has permitted almost 2,000 employees to participate in such exchanges between March 24 of last year when the program was first introduced.

I am confident this tool will continue to be effective in accommodating departments, managers and employee needs and that management will strive to use this and other tools available to ease the transition of all those who will be affected.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)