Réal Ménard

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is like a propeller, we never know which way he will turn. Does he not realize that, by refusing to include a Canadian content requirement in this contract, he is not only compromising our businesses' chances of securing the contract but also completely ignoring the policy on managing major crown projects, namely projects in excess of $100 million, which clearly requires him to give top priority to industrial and regional development?

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister. Yesterday, the minister quoted, in support of his decision to buy new search and rescue helicopters, an analysis published in Le Devoir . Had he read

it through, he would have learned that Quebec was the biggest loser in the cancellation of the EH-101 contract.

Given that the Canadian aerospace industry is mainly based in the Montreal area, that Quebec is far from getting its fair share of defence spending and that the minister did not hesitate to award without tender to Ontario a $2 billion contract for armoured personnel carriers, how can he explain the fact that there is no Canadian content requirement in the new contract? How can he justify that?

[National Housing Act, November 3rd, 1995]

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. We will, of course, support the bill introduced by the parliamentary secretary since we agree with what it proposes to do, which is to increase the aggregate amount of loans that may be approved by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to $150 billion, but the fact remains that it all seems very unsatisfactory.

We must admit that, at the very least, there is something embarrassing, disturbing and unsatisfactory about the fact that we have before us a bill that reminds us that the federal government's involvement in the housing sector, through this flimsy vehicle, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, consists exclusively of loan guarantees.

We must not forget it has been some years-in fact, since 1989 but even more so since 1992-since the federal government withdrew altogether from the construction of social housing. Remember this: It completely withdrew from this sector, and I intend to give chapter and verse later on. There is something here that arouses a sense of outrage and indignation-and I hope the parliamentary secretary, who I know is sensitive to these issues, will share my sense of outrage and indignation-when we see that the federal government, with all the resources at its disposal, has nothing to offer except loan guarantees through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Meanwhile, it has withdrawn from the construction of social housing, it completely abolished its co-operative housing policy in 1992, which the Liberals had promised to reinstate, and plays no role at all in housing renovation.

We have a definite problem with this. And anyone in this House who has a social conscience must feel the same. As for amending the National Housing Act and having a debate on housing, what are we entitled to expect from the government? We have a Liberal government that does not believe that poverty is acceptable, that believes that being a Liberal means embracing the philosophy of liberalism. Embracing this philosophy means believing that the state has a role to play in putting an end to the disparities in our society.

I know the parliamentary secretary agrees with me. As the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I am disappointed. And if the hon. member does not agree with the substance of what I am saying, I am sure that by the end of my speech he will have changed his mind.

The issue is one that concerns me, as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and as a former member of the board of a technical resources group that examined these issues. I have been involved in housing issues since I was 20, and I am now 33, although I may not look it. The fact remains that I have been involved in the housing sector for nearly 13 years. And I am shocked that this government has nothing to offer in the way of social housing.

It is particularly shocking this morning, when we are asked to discuss the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a time when poverty, both in Canada and Quebec, is more widespread than ever before. This is serious.

As members of Parliament, we all represent ridings, and when it comes down to it, we all want to work for the people who elected us. We all know that housing, the right to have a decent roof over your head at a decent price, is something that is central to people's lives.

The debate this morning comes at a time when there is more poverty than ever before. Mr. Speaker, let me quote a few figures. When we talk about poverty, we should remember that in Quebec, to give you a very specific example-or perhaps we should look at

the situation in Canada as a whole, where the poverty rate is now 17.4 per cent. So what does poverty mean? Poverty is when a household has to spend more than 55 per cent of its income on three basic items: rent, food and clothing.

We live in a society where poverty is more widespread than ever before. And since we live in this society, we have every right to expect the Liberal government to be a little more enterprising, to come up with a proposal this morning that is more intelligent and more pro-active than approving loan guarantees, since even the parliamentary secretary admitted this did not represent any additional cost to the public purse. The parliamentary secretary was very frank at the beginning of his speech when he said this was a program, a loan guarantee that was self-financing and did not cost the treasury a cent.

Is the parliamentary secretary satisfied? Does he approve of the fact that his government, considering its responsibilities at a time when more people are poor than ever before, when, according to Statistics Canada, we have never been so short of housing? When the parliamentary secretary goes to bed tonight with his beloved, will he be pleased that his government has nothing to offer but a loan guarantee which puts no strain on the public purse?

That does not satisfy me. I do not think that it is politically defensible. So 17.4 per cent of Canadian households are classified as poor. This means that 17.4 per cent of the population belongs to a household which spends 55 per cent or more of its income on the three basic items.

I know we are just coming out of a referendum campaign, and that events in the months to come will mean that the issue is not totally closed, but speaking as a levelheaded, rational man-two qualities which I think the parliamentary secretary will agree describe my character-I feel that, when evaluating federalism, it is our duty to recall that Quebec, as we speak, is the province with the highest rate of poverty.

As we speak, Quebec has the highest number of poor households of anywhere in Canada. If the parliamentary secretary is sceptical, I can provide figures. The most recent figures available are for 1993: Newfoundland, 17.7 per cent of households; P.E.I., 9.9 per cent; Nova Scotia, 5.5 per cent; New Brunswick, 14.5 per cent; Quebec, 20.7 per cent.

This means that 20 out of every 100 households belong to people who are among the poorest in Canada. This is the reality the federal regime has inflicted upon us. And this is not a mindset, a political pipedream, but something confirmed by Statistics Canada.

So the figure in Quebec is 20.7 per cent; in Ontario: 15.6 per cent; in Manitoba, 18.1 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 17 per cent; in Alberta, 17.6 per cent. In a context where Quebec has the highest number of poor households, in a context where we are aware of the importance of housing in balancing individuals' and families' budgets, we find ourselves faced with a government that has nothing to propose except the addition of a measure like any other government action relating to shelter, a loan guarantee. One that they have the gall to describe as not requiring anything from the government, from the public purse, because it is self-sustaining.

As the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, as an individual who believes in democracy, I wish to state that it is my belief that the government is not assuming its responsibilities, that this is shameful, that this is unacceptable, that it is just one more reason to separate, because we have no need of a government that cannot offer us anything in the area of housing.

If the parliamentary secretary finds that I am overdoing it, he has only to get up off his chair and add some substance to his proposals on housing-at this time, as we speak, all of my friendly feelings for the parliamentary secretary notwithstanding, we have every reason for dissatisfaction. But I want to get back to the subject of poverty in Quebec.

Quebec has 24 per cent of the total Canadian population. The federal government gains 23 per cent of its income from Quebec's individual or corporate taxpayers. Thirty per cent of all of those living in poverty live in Quebec. There is one other reality which characterizes Quebec and militates in favour of more government involvement in social housing: more Quebecers rent their homes than the Canadian average.

This means that more individuals in Quebec have insufficient income to own property. This is why we feel a government must be involved in social housing. What is social housing in its co-operative or non-profit OSBL form? I shall come back to that later.

When a government sets aside public funds for social housing in co-operative or OSBL form, this is because of a belief that there are people whose income alone, without a little hand up from the government, will never enable them to own property.

This is a trend which a self-respecting government, a government with some social democratic leanings will take action to correct-and I am sure that the Government whip either lives in a co-op or has plans to do so, since he shares our slight socialist bent.

All of this to say that, in Quebec, 44.4 per cent of households are tenants; 44.4 per cent rent their homes, while the Canadian average is 37.1 per cent. We would therefore have been right to expect this morning that the government would have a somewhat more substantial policy to provide support to the provinces in the whole area of public housing.

I say "a somewhat more substantial policy" with respect to the provinces, because it is clear in my mind that federal government involvement in housing must take the form of a transfer of funds or budget allocations, where the funds are managed by the government of the individual provinces. I say this, because it is clear, constitutionally, that the federal government has no authority to intervene in the matter of housing.

When it does, it is obviously contravening the Canadian constitution, because neither section 92 nor section 93 accords the federal government jurisdiction over housing. We must remember, however, that, if the federal government is to be involved in public housing, as I think it ought, it is by transferring money to the provinces, which want to be involved.

No one is saying the government should not set funds aside. We acknowledge that it has a fiscal capacity, access to areas of taxation that justify its setting money aside for the provinces.

I have an example for hon. members. Quebec has a program, I do not know if the parliamentary secretary is familiar with it, called Logirente. It targets people 55 years of age or older, who have difficulty paying their monthly rent on the basis of their income alone.

The government of Quebec assists those who meet the eligibility criteria with their rent payment monthly.

Some 60,000 people benefit from this program at the moment. Quebec officials asked the federal government if it could also get involved and make some money available.

Had the federal government agreed, through an administrative agreement, to become involved in the operation of the Logirente program, we estimate that 145,000 households and families could have been helped, instead of the present 60,000.

This is the role of government. What is the point in having a federal government that could care less about getting involved in people's lives when the most fundamental of needs are at issue? You will not be surprised to learn that the federal government refused to get involved in the Logirente program, thus ensuring that 60,000 households rather than 145,000 could benefit from it. This is one case where federalism is not working, and where a sovereign Quebec could have, on its own and totally, a housing policy it alone established, one that functioned independently under its control.

I would like to come back to something I consider absolutely essential, something that could have helped us through the difficult years of the last recession and could help Canadians through the next recession. The program we must talk about and one I encourage the federal government to re-establish with the provinces is, obviously, the co-operative housing program.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that, in 1992, the federal government of the day abolished it without so much as a warning cry, a hint of its intention or consultation of any sort. Of course the parliamentary secretary will say it was not his government. That is true. Nevertheless, his government has not taken any positive action to date to re-establish it. Despite the fact that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is relatively well off, we have not found a way to use public money to establish a co-operative housing program.

What does a national co-op program entail? First of all, a national co-op program requires that people be responsible since co-op members must choose a board of directors and acknowledge their responsibility to manage and maintain the building in which they live. This implies that they feel concerned about their environment.

There are now 40,000 people-I hope the parliamentary secretary will admit that these are real figures, and I invite him to check their accuracy-on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's waiting list for co-op housing. As a member of Parliament who believes in co-op housing, I am proud to remind you that, between 1973 and 1992, 85,000 units were funded by the provincial and federal programs then in effect, particularly by the federal government because it is mostly at that level that programs were available.

Co-op housing was found for 255,000 low income people. What is the reality? The reality is that, as we speak in November 1995, 66 per cent of households in co-op housing have an income that is less than $30,000, or a third of what MPs earn. We should keep this in mind. We can still agree that, in 1995, $30,000 a year is certainly a modest or average income.

In the past, and especially during the last federal election campaign, I heard members say that some co-op members were making $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, and that co-op housing was reserved for the better-off in our society. When we look at the figures a little more closely, we see that co-op housing is a tool available to the poor or to honest, middle class people, since 66 per cent of co-op members, 66 per cent of households, make less than $30,000 a year.

Thirty per cent of households in co-op housing across Canada are headed by single mothers. These women are their families' breadwinners. This shows that there is a need, that there are poor people who, for all kinds of reasons, were not able to buy their own homes.

It is reasonable to think that a decent government, one that lives up to its responsibilities and cares about the people, cannot tolerate a situation in which the federal government has nothing to offer people with housing programs.

The main paradox of the federal government's withdrawal from the housing sector, especially from co-op housing, is that, in the

past three years, unemployment in the residential construction sector has hovered around 20 per cent. I think that the hon. members in this House would agree with that figure.

As our grandparents used to say, and I am sure that your grandmother also said it, "as the construction industry goes so goes the world".

Why is it that, with an unemployment rate of 20 per cent in the residential construction sector, the government does not realize that one way to revitalize the Canadian economy would be to promote the construction of co-op units?

Let us not forget that, for every 1,000 co-op units built-I have the figures here-2,000 direct jobs are created. The parliamentary secretary should never forget that, every time public assistance makes it possible to build 1,000 co-op units, 2,000 new jobs are created.

There are not many sectors in which government initiatives give a 200 per cent return. But in the housing sector, for every 1,000 co-op units built, 2,000 direct jobs are created.

Why does the government not understand that reality? Why is the government so dull witted and narrow minded? Whay can the government not see the obvious? Can we rely on those government members who represent ridings, in Montreal and in the regions, where there is a need for co-op housing? I ask these members to get a little more involved and show a little more respect for the people who need the government's assistance to take action.

The influence of the Quebec Liberal caucus on cabinet is aptly described by the movie title The Silence of the Lambs . We truly feel that the Quebec Liberal caucus has no desire to make representations to cabinet to correct the major fundamental injustices suffered by Quebecers because of policies put forward by this government, particularly in the housing sector.

Since 1989, the federal government has drastically reduced its support in the renovation and the co-op housing sectors, including its support to owner occupants. That withdrawal has had the effect of destabilizing public finances, as well as the economic situation of the poor in our society.

Let me give you an example. There used to be a rehabilitation assistance program for rental housing, which allowed people living in non-profit housing to get financing for up to 50 per cent of the costs of renovations to a housing unit. That was a joint program, with the federal and the provinces, Quebec in this instance, each assuming 50 per cent of the costs.

Then, all of sudden, without any warning, without any consultation, and in a period of widespread poverty, the federal government withdrew its financial support to the program. This resulted in a $20 million shortfall for Quebec.

Let us take the important issue of social housing. There are, in every riding, people who live in low rental housing. We are proud of these people, because they are a very dynamic group within our community. People who live in low rental housing create a feeling of solidarity. They have community halls which often alleviate the problem of loneliness.

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the federal government bluntly withdrew its support to that sector. Since 1992, not a single low rental housing unit has been built in Canada or in Quebec. I am shocked and I find this irresponsible. I was hoping that, this morning, the federal government would have shown a desire to do more in the important co-op and social housing sector.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several hundred persons, young people who are demanding that the Canadian government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as the tenth illegal reason for discrimination.

I enthusiastically support this petition and trust that the government will act it on expeditiously.

[Private Members' Business-Motion M-473, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek the House's assent to change Motion No. 473 for Motion No. 474 on the order of priorities for private members' business. I seek the consent of the House in this.

[Aids, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this National AIDS awareness week has given us members the opportunity to reflect on this significant problem for society, as between 42,000 and 45,000 Canadians and Quebecers are now infected with HIV.

It is our duty to step up our efforts to eradicate HIV transmission and to ensure that infected individuals receive the support they require. The battle against AIDS, however, also includes a battle against homophobia, and that is precisely the theme of the 1995 awareness campaign.

Putting an end to homophobia requires a positive atmosphere, an atmosphere of solidarity toward those who are seropositive, and a positive representation of homosexuality. My closing wish is that all members of this House will contribute to overcoming homophobia and thus to winning the battle against AIDS.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I will admit that some people are being frustrated. Let me say this to her.

It seems to me that it would be a great deal easier as parliamentarians to reach a consensus on the justification for an employment equity act if we were in a context of job creation. Surely, we must hope that there are enough jobs to go around. The misfortune at this time, the reason there has been the heavy backlash on employment equity, is that there are too few jobs available and that the jobs available are not accessible to everyone.

I agree with the hon. member on this. Where our opinions diverge is that over here in my seat for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve I feel that a full employment policy is not possible in a country that stretches across a whole continent, as Canada does. Those countries that have adopted successful employment policies-because trade is a worldwide affair, but unemployment is not, and I would be delighted if we could have the 5 or 6 per cent unemployment they have in Austria and other countries-are small countries with populations of seven, eight or ten million and countries with great cohesiveness. And Quebec possesses those characteristics.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his good words. I think exactly the same of him. It was a pleasure to work with him, because he seems to represent the progressive wing of his caucus. That wing is not as important as it should be, but that issue will not be solved at this level.

I want to give him an example. It goes without saying that if we agree with employment equity, we support the objective of making more room for designated groups. Let me give a concrete example which is related to my personal life.

I have a twin brother who suffers from cerebral palsy, and I am convinced that he wants to earn a living, just like I do. He is as intelligent, hard working and willing as I am. Had it not been for the fact that a number of organizations have specific policies urging employers to hire persons with disabilities, my brother would probably never have found work. We have to recognize that it is not a natural tendency for an employer to hire handicapped people. Nor is it a natural tendency to hire members of a visible minority group. Employers are still very reluctant to hire women who might give birth in the near future.

When my twin brother was hired, had he been chosen instead of an able-bodied person, that person might have resented the fact and that would have been understandable. However, we must go beyond such considerations, which means that, in a number of cases, preferential treatment should be given to the four designated groups mentioned in the legislation. I agree with that principle.

The minor distinction which I would make is that, in order to achieve genuine and real employment equity, it is necessary that when people apply for a job, their application be reviewed based on their ability to do that job. When my disabled brother was hired, he had the basic skills required to perform the duties involved.

The bill includes a very explicit provision which provides that an employer is not required to hire unqualified persons. It can be assumed that, given personnel management policies, employers conducting interviews to recruit staff will reject applicants who are not deemed qualified. However, when a number of people have equal skills, including persons with disabilities, then a collective effort should be made to help these persons get the job.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lévis has already said we support Bill C-64, on which I believe we have worked very hard in committee. We heard a number of witnesses and tried in good faith to improve the bill.

It is worthwhile keeping in mind, I think, that the bill before us on employment equity goes back as a concept to 1983 and the Abella commission. The Abella commission provided us with a very clear understanding of the fact that, while individual discrimination still exists, often in the form of prejudice or negative attitudes toward certain social phenomena within our society, a more systemic discrimination still exists as well, related to the system and to certain practices, rules and usages which are still sanctioned and upon which it is not easy, as an individual, to make any impact to bring about change.

What Bill C-64 asks of us is to ensure that the composition of the labour market reflects the composition of the Canadian population. I do not see anything in such an objective that is unreasonable or beyond our grasp as a society.

When it comes to systemic discrimination, discrimination within the system, which is most certainly the hardest to get rid of, four categories of individuals have the most difficulty claiming their rightful place in the work force. First and foremost in the four groups listed in the bill are women, and we shall come back to this, since they make up more than half of the Canadian population and still lag considerably behind in the workforce, particularly where wage policies are concerned, as the member for Lévis mentioned.

The second group is visible minorities. They say we live in an increasingly cosmopolitan society. This implies there are more and more people who do not belong to the majority, who are not white, and these people also have specific problems such as getting promoted and getting a job with managerial responsibilities in the workplace.

And of course we have persons with disabilities. This has become a fact of life. Our society can expect to have an increasing number of people who are functionally challenged. There is certainly a connection with the increase in people's life expectancy, especially among women who seem to have a philosophy of life and a knack for taking care of themselves from which men would have a lot to learn.

The last group covered by this bill is aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal peoples represent approximately 4 per cent of the Canadian population but have managed to occupy only 1 per cent of the jobs available.

In federally-regulated companies with more than 100 employees and throughout the public service-more on that later-we are being asked to find ways to ensure better representation of these four groups in the labour market.

We asked ourselves two questions when considering this bill. First, whether other groups or individuals in our society suffered systemic discrimination.

It was pointed out that older workers may have been discriminated against, since it is not easy when you are laid off and lose your job, and you are 40, 50 or 55 years old, to find a job somewhere else. I think we can safely say there is some hidden discrimination against this group.

The question also arose whether in our society young people, the under thirties, also have that problem. We tried to get some statistics to have a better picture of the problems facing these people. We concluded on the basis of the information we had in committee that there was no specific indication that young people and older workers had suffered systemic discrimination during the past few years.

Under the employment equity bill, it is also possible to invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is a mixture of the best and the worst. The best being, of course, the will to ensure that every citizen, irrespective of his income, origins, or profession, has certain rights. I would say the worst part is the provision which attempts rather awkwardly, without reflecting much concern for the interests of Quebec, to support multiculturalism. But that is another issue. In any case, section 15(2) of the charter allows for specific measures aimed at the same designated groups we find in Bill C-64.

Why do I mention this? Because very often there is an assumption that employment equity legislation, and this includes federal as well as provincial legislation, may not be compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Upon closer scrutiny that is clearly not the case, and as I said before, section 15(2) of the charter allows for measures to deal specifically with designated groups.

The overall picture, before we get into the details, is the following. There seems to be a pretty standard profile of economic discrimination on the labour market against women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities, and the situation is not improving. I would say there are four characteristics that are a constant in access to employment for the four designated groups.

Generally speaking, the unemployment rate is higher for women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities. The level of unemployment of people in these groups is often higher than the national average, despite the fact that we have had employment equity legislation since 1986. This is the first characteristic of a general economic profile.

Also, generally speaking, we can say that these people are in poorer paying jobs, that is, again as compared with the national average.

When we look at the employment profile and the type of jobs these people hold, we realize that they often occupy lower level positions, not executive or management ones. For certain groups, and I am thinking particularly of women and aboriginal peoples-I was very surprised to learn-the lower level positions are often clerical jobs, junior positions. Here again, nothing has changed since 1986.

The final characteristic of this general profile is that the people in the four designated groups are employed in jobs with low growth potential. This means that, in the course of the changes the job market will undergo in the next few years, these are the jobs that will be threatened, because of their low level of specialization.

I think it important to keep this profile in mind, because, once we realize the situation, it is impossible to rise, like some of our Reform colleagues have done, and state that everyone is equal in the labour market. It is not true that everyone is equal, and it is not true that everyone has an equal opportunity to occupy the same jobs.

But that does not mean that progress has not been made. I think we would be misinformed as parliamentarians if we did not acknowledge what has been achieved since 1986.

I would like to outline for you the percentage of jobs held by each of the designated groups in relation to the jobs held by the population as a whole.

Let us take members of visible minorities, for example. We are told that, as of the last census, they represented 9.4 per cent of the population. In 1987, one year after the Employment Equity Act came into effect, they occupied 5 per cent of the jobs in the labour market. Between 1987 and 1993, with the legislation still in effect, progress was made, because members of visible minorities now represented 8.9 per cent of the labour force.

Obviously, 8.9 per cent is lower than the absolute proportion of the population they represent, which is 9.4 per cent.

Women, of whom the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration spoke so eloquently, represent 52 per cent of the population of Canada. As we know, this is a widespread phenomenon, there is no hiding it. Just think, in 1987, they occupied 40 per cent of the jobs available on the labour market in Canada. By 1993, things had improved and women held 45 per cent of available jobs.

Nevertheless, when we analyze the figures a bit,-and this is where we realize it-we see the need for employment equity legislation. I wonder, in the case of the pages, whether we have achieved a balance between men and women. I would guess from what I have seen that, in this session, the women outnumber the men. But we will get hold of the statistics on this.

The aboriginal peoples represent 4 per cent of the Canadian population. In this case, things are really dramatic. In the case of the aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, progress has been particularly pitiful and there is the greatest cause for concern for us as lawmakers.

The aboriginal peoples represent 4 per cent of the Canadian population. In 1987-hold on tight, Mr. Speaker, you are in for a shock-they held .66 per cent, that is, not even 1 per cent, of jobs on the labour market. In 1993, they occupied 1.4 per cent of the jobs.

This is a recovery. There is a pressing need to change course. Handicapped people, who represent 15 per cent of the Canadian population, were holding 1.59 per cent of jobs in the work place in

1987 and 2.56 per cent in 1993. Even today in 1995, we see discrimination, a gap, an imbalance between the importance of some designated categories and their place in the labour market. This is what Bill C-64 is designed to correct, and I do not understand how a member of Parliament, a representative of the people cannot subscribe to these principles.

One thing surprised me throughout our numerous committee hearings. Of course, I do not deny that there is a cost and some paperwork attached to employment equity, but I was pleasantly surprised to note that what employers came to tell us is that an employment equity strategy is now part of a sound staff management policy.

Removing employment barriers against certain people is in everyone's interest. In a context where businesses are asked to be good corporate citizens, to maintain close links with their communities, striking just the right balance between a business and its environment is in everyone's interest. This is a provision of Bill C-64 on employment equity.

Unlike in the first few years when it was enforced, the law is no longer perceived strictly as an anti-discrimination device. It is seen as an important component of sound management and enforcement of a human resources management policy.

When we stop to think about it, there is a cost attached to delaying employment equity. If it is true that handicapped people, people with functional limitations who can hold a job are denied this opportunity, if it is true that these people represent 15 per cent of the Canadian population and that 60 to 80 per cent of them are unemployed, we must realize that there is a cost attached to this because the productivity they could contribute to Canadian society is lost to us as a society.

Provisions like this one in the employment equity bill are to be commended.

What pleased committee members the most-and this was also one of the recommendations adopted by the previous committee in the previous Parliament during the five year review-is that the Employment Equity Act will now apply to the public service of Canada as a whole.

The act previously applied to perhaps 5 per cent of employees working for some 300 employers. This act will now apply to twice as many workers, since the entire public service of Canada, which employs close to 300,000 people, will now be subject to it.

Of course-and we agree with this-, provision has been made for some organizations that will now be subject to Treasury Board regulations because of certain strategic imperatives concerning them. These organizations include the Communications Security Establishment, the RCMP, the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

All committee members expressed the wish to be subject to the Employment Equity Act once the amendments have been made.

I heard on several occasions a fallacious, hypocritical, deceitful and dishonest argument from our Reform colleagues, who told us that employment equity meant hiring incompetent people.

That is the basic argument that was used throughout our deliberations by our colleagues from the Reform Party, who do not support Bill C-64. This argument does not stand up to analysis however, because the legislator provides in the bill, more exactly in clause 56, that this is not employment equity.

It provides for three things. Employers to whom the legislation will apply because they have 100 employees or more are told that employment equity does not entail opening new jobs. We can appreciate that, in the current economic conditions, not all industrial sectors are experiencing growth.

In fact, you must admit that the government's financial plan is rather shabby, despicable and mediocre. One cannot ask that new jobs be created for the sake of implementing an employment equity policy. Employment equity does not mean creating new jobs, no more than it means setting quotas. There is no mention of this in the bill and I think it is ill-advised to say otherwise.

How will all that work in everyday life? What employers are asked to do is to prepare an annual employment equity plan and file it by June 30 with the human resources directorate. This plan must contain three things, more or less. It will have to set out how the workforce composition will be assessed. Having assessed the composition of the workforce within his business, where underrepresentation has been identified, the employer will be required to set out what measures he intends to take in order to remedy the situation both qualitatively and quantitatively.

That is a major change introduced by the bill. Not only is the employer required to assess quantitatively the composition of his workforce, but he can also provide qualitative information, which was not the case previously.

We are dissatisfied with certain aspects regarding the employment equity plan. Personally, I would have liked this plan to be prepared and implemented jointly by union and management, as a requirement. We have presented amendments to make this a joint responsibility, a mandatory and binding responsibility, because we do not think that employment equity is possible unless it is something that all parties want and agree to.

Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated and I think that the government made a major mistake there because there was a

consensus among the interested parties about this provision. In addition, we would have liked that a copy of the employment equity plan be distributed to each employee and the contents of the plan to be posted in common display areas, as provided for in the Canada Labour Code for instance, where the employer is required to post his policy regarding sexual harassment.

We believe that the bill would have been greatly improved as a result, had the government bowed to the opposition's arguments. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and we were told, quite wrongly I would say, that the employment equity plan would contain strategic information, information which, by virtue of its highly confidential nature, could put the businesses' competitive position at risk. To this, the unions and our party naturally replied: "But if all employers are subject to the same requirements and all of them have the same plan and are willing to make it available within the organization, it is hard to believe that some of them could be penalized, since this standardized policy would be implemented across the board".

To conclude, let me say that it is with great pleasure that we support a bill which, without being perfect, is a major step forward as far as employment equity is concerned.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

moved

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20, the following:

"(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint persons a ) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole; and b ) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20, the following:

"(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint persons a ) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole; or b ) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''

Mr. Speaker, for your information, my colleague is Mr. Deshaies, and I thank him for supporting the motion.

I would simply like to say what it is about. One of the innovations in this bill, which has earned the support of the official opposition, is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be made specifically responsible for enforcing the Employment Equity Act. No doubt, for those not familiar with employment equity, it would be useful to point out that it involves making arrangements to ensure that four categories of people in our society: women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities may finally take their rightful place in the labour market.

One of the means the bill proposes, is obligation, which applies to both the private sector and the public sector-making the public sector subject to the provisions of the bill is another one of its innovations. This means that, once the bill receives royal assent, 300,000 other Canadians and Quebecers will be covered by employment equity.

One of the obligations under this bill is that of preparing an employment equity plan, which is to be submitted the following June to the director responsible for the program at Human Resources Development Canada. It will be up to the Minister of Human Resources Development to combine all the plans submitted by both the private and public sectors.

The reason I say this is very important is because, when plans are missing, when an employer fails to submit an employment equity plan within the required time period and fails to make all reasonable efforts-the expression used in the bill-to achieve the employment equity objectives he set for himself, then a course of redress is possible. That is where the amendment enters in.

For the first time since the Employment Equity Act was assented to, that is since 1986, the human rights commissioner will be able, on request and as he sees fit during summary proceedings where there has been an admission of guilt, to establish an employment equity review tribunal.

This is an extremely important body for enforcing the act because there is no provision for a right of appeal. The commissioner will therefore have the responsibility of creating a committee from whose decisions there may be no appeal, as the hon. parliamentary secretary who is so fascinated by these questions is aware. In other words, decisions will be final and binding.

The Bloc's amendment, which I believe is a well thought out amendment, will certainly gain government support, since this government is beginning to feel more and more alone.

The amendment will consist in ensuring that the three administrative officers called upon to hear the case will come from designated groups.

We feel that this is important, that there must be a correlation, a link, between what it is felt that this act represents and those who will be bringing down a decision in one of these administrative proceedings.

These are the reasons it is so vital for this bill to be amended and for the commission members not to be already in the employ of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission employees do a good job, no denying; they are well informed about the various statutes concerning human rights, but they have never brought down decisions relating to employment equity. We on this side of the House would like to see a specific clause in this bill devoted to the Human Rights Commission's ability to select from

among the general population people to represent women, the disabled, visible minorities and of course aboriginal people.

We feel that it will be far more worthwhile for this tribunal not to require any exceptional procedures and for it to be flexible. The only thing that will be exceptional will be the rights of appeal, as I have already stated. The principles of natural justice will have to apply, but should a tribunal decision be found to have been in error, there would still be the possibility of applying for an appeal to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal.

Basically, we think it would be useful to amend the bill so that the commissioners who sit on these tribunals are members of the groups for whom we are trying to ensure representation.

I must say I regret, and I say this with my usual frankness, that the government was not very receptive to this amendment in committee. Now you know my philosophy: I always do everything out in the open. I told the government I would introduce an amendment, and they have not been very receptive.

I hope that between consideration in committee and the debate we are having today, the government will have reconsidered, because this is supported by representatives of the cultural communities who appeared before the committee and by the unions.

I may recall that this amendment would not involve additional expenditures, since in any case, it does not change what the bill now prescribes, which is the presence of three commissioners whose remuneration shall be paid by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Since the government has maintained the same designation procedure and did not feel it was necessary to add another category, the groups are still the same, in other words, women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. In committee we discussed the relevance of adding a fifth or sixth category but concluded that we did not have enough information on other groups in society that might experience specific discrimination in the workplace.

Since the designated groups were maintained and are still designated on the basis of self-designation, I think it makes sense to take the same approach when administrative authorities are asked to hand down rulings, that is, when an employment equity review tribunal is appointed.

I have the impression, and I say this with the utmost caution, that this is also an amendment the Reform Party would like to see. Again, and we cannot repeat this often enough, this will not involve any additional budgetary expenditures, since the composition of the employment equity review tribunal remains the same when a tribunal is established at the request of the human rights commissioner, since according to the bill, establishment of a tribunal may be requested by either the employer or the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We feel this amendment will considerably improve the bill. I hope it will receive the support of a majority of the members in this House.