Rey D. Pagtakhan

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a country is what citizens make it. Therefore we can take collective pride that Canada has been deemed by the United Nations as the number one country in the world in which to live.

Today we are challenged once more to reaffirm our faith in our country. We are asked to reaffirm our trust in each other. We are called to creative leadership. Either we are for Canada or we are not.

It is with great pride that I rise today during this historic debate to offer my full support of the unity package unveiled by the government and now before the House.

A key component of this package is Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments. The bill commits the Government of Canada to obtain the approval of all four regions of the country, namely, the western region comprising Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, the Atlantic region comprising Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as two separate regions.

Ottawa commits itself, before constitutional amendments can be proposed to Parliament, to first obtain the consent of at least six provinces, namely, Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from the Atlantic region representing more than 50 per cent of the region's population and two provinces from the western region representing more than 50 per cent of the west's population.

When Bill C-110 becomes law, the federal government could not proceed to table a constitutional amendment if any one of the four regions refused to give its consent, even if seven provinces representing 50 per cent of Canada's population pass resolutions in favour of such a constitutional amendment.

Although the present bill does not amend the Canadian Constitution which stipulates four legal amending processes as provided for in sections 38 to 44 of part V, it is as an act of the federal Parliament binding on current and succeeding governments.

The western region makes up nearly 30 per cent of Canada's population, larger than Quebec's and smaller than Ontario's. Taking into account the population of each of the four western provinces, the bill affects the western region in this fashion: first, Alberta would require either British Columbia or a combination of Saskatchewan and Manitoba to exercise the veto; second, Manito-

ba and Saskatchewan would require British Columbia or each other and Alberta to exercise the veto; third, British Columbia would require only one other western province to exercise its right to say no.

The regional veto envisioned in this bill gives greater strength to each of the western provinces than can be obtained under the existing amending formula.

It is a significant step forward. It illustrates the flexibility of federalism to which the government is committed. It is this sort of political creativity and ingenuity that should summon in us a sense of pride in our Canadian citizenship, which should be a forum for transcending differences and considering the common good of all.

Most Canadians became citizens by birth. For me, becoming Canadian was a conscious choice, a choice informed by a strong commitment to the values, goals and vision Canada has for herself in the world community.

In January 1968 I braved my first Canadian winter in Winnipeg as a new immigrant. Coming from the tropical climes of the Philippines, the country of my birth, the cold winds and bitter frost of the North American prairie seemed particularly harsh. But the chill of the winter was quickly offset by the warmth of the welcome I received from the people of Manitoba. Winnipeg was my Canadian city of entry, a friendly place where I felt at home instantly. But Canada is the country I adopted.

My four sons were born on Canadian soil. Many of my dreams for my family and my career have been realized in Canada. My future goals, if they are achieved, will be achieved in this country.

This is a country which accommodates the dreams of individuals from all cultures, from all walks of life. This is a country that promotes and supports a fully integrated citizenship which takes these differences into account.

My constituency of Winnipeg North is a microcosm of Canada. People of aboriginal ancestry and people of Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, Indian, Portuguese and Filipino origins, along with anglophone and francophones and many others, have made Winnipeg North their home. They are proud of their heritage and they are proud of their Canadian citizenship. These define our shared identity.

Beyond our shared identity, beyond our diversity there is a stronger force that socially binds us. It is a set of shared political values. Canadians share a belief in equality and fairness. They believe in consultation and dialogue. They share in the importance of accommodation and tolerance. They share compassion, generosity and an attachment to the natural environment. Together they support diversity. As a people we share a commitment to freedom, peace and non-violent change.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast told us four years ago that we share these seven values. It is certainly true that we in different regions, provinces, cities, communities and households may feel like a minority with different priorities and goals. Sometimes those differences can make us feel alienated from the majority.

I know that feeling. As a Filipino Canadian, I know that being a member of a visible minority makes me sometimes feel like an outsider. Occasionally I feel a sense of aloneness. But those feeling pass whenever one stops to consider the policies which inform the real discourse of this country.

Nearly a quarter of a century ago in this House, then Prime Minister Trudeau introduced a ground breaking policy which formalized the very values of which I spoke earlier. One of the chief aims of that policy was to enhance every Canadian's sense of belonging, in the process fostering the ties that bind us all together.

The policy has showcased, in a very real sense, the creativity, the ingenuity of the Canadian people. It sent a clear message to me as a Canadian of Filipino origin that I was as welcome in Canada as anyone else. It confirmed my initial impressions of Canada formed that first winter a few years earlier. It made me understand that, yes, I am different from some, but I am equal to all.

The bill before us today is the fulfilment of a promise, part of the promise that includes recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. We all know and have known since Confederation that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, a distinctiveness defined by her unique culture, French speaking majority and civil law tradition.

As I mentioned before, differences can lead one to a sense of alienation. With this motion introduced by the Prime Minister, Canadians are sending the clear message to Quebecers that we not only respect the differences in their traditions, history, language and culture, we celebrate and value them. They make Canada whole.

We are reawakened to the spirit of partnership and collaboration which brought us together more than a century and a quarter ago. We want Quebecers to know that by working together, we can develop a national vision to confront with resolute confidence the challenges of today and tomorrow just as we triumphed when we faced the challenges of the past.

Our historical achievements in building this nation rightly give us a sense of national pride.

Our shared identity, our shared values, our collective sense of pride in the midst of our deep diversity, are the tools that shall preserve Canada as a nation, that shall propel us to prosperity. These are the tools that will translate our hope into reality.

The challenge before us today is whether we have the will to accommodate, the will to make sacrifices for our common national good, the goodwill to see us build on the partnership of the past 128 years. We cannot allow history to judge us harshly. We cannot allow the moment for national unity to pass. I therefore ask all colleagues to shed political partisanship for Canadian partnership. Long live Canada. Vive le Canada.

[Child Poverty, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week's Campaign 2000 report of a drop in the number of poor children in Canada is good news, but there remain nearly 1.4 million children who do not have the adequate food, shelter, clothing, and social environment their peers enjoy.

Poverty is a serious threat to the growth, development, and social well-being of children and therefore merits the continuing attention of all levels of government. Therefore I have introduced a private member's motion to encourage the government to create a special Canada children's future fund. This is to ensure that the elimination of child poverty remains at the forefront of our national agenda even during tough economic times.

I look forward to the full support of the House. All children deserve a secure and stable tomorrow, for they hold in their hands the future of our nation.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that the constituents of Winnipeg North in addressing this issue have not only called to tell us about their concerns for safety in their homes and on the streets but they have also shared solutions.

One of the important things my constituents have told me is that we should address the fundamental causes of crime. That is just like preventive medicine. Unless we address the root causes of crime we may not totally address the issue.

I am proud to say that in my constituency of Winnipeg North the MLA for The Maples in my riding has now established the Maples Youth Justice Committee. The MLA for Inkster has established a similar organization, as has the MLA for Kildonan. I have met with all of them.

What specific initiative has the member taken in his own riding to address the root causes of crime? Does the Reform Party acknowledge that prisoners week is an international religious event that includes victims, families and communities as it addresses the issues of the victims and the prisoners? Does the Reform Party not acknowledge that the victims of the misuse of firearms, for example the relatives of the victims of the massacre in Montreal, were correct in asking for gun control? If that is so, where does the member's party stand on this issue?

[The Late Yitzhak Rabin, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, only two years ago Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin proclaimed to the world: "Enough of blood and tears. Enough".

Today citizens of the world remember those courageous words as they mourn the tragic loss of this great peacemaker. It is indeed ironic that a man of peace should be taken from the world so violently.

Today as we mourn his death we also celebrate his life. We shall continue to remember him for the legacy he has left behind: peace in the Middle East which will be treasured by every child who comes of age in a better world.

Mr. Rabin knew the soul of his people and his people came to him for leadership in war and in peace.

As we grieve with his family and his nation, let us resolve that his death shall not still the life of peace.

[Grandparents Day, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have seconded this motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Don Valley North, on the selection of grandparents day in Canada, Motion No. 273.

I believe the motion will be a model for the world by showing that Canada pays respect to grandparents, to seniors, whose love, wisdom and caring for their daughters and sons, for their grandchildren, are truly recognized.

It is my honour to support this motion.

[Motion No. 383, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, through you I seek the unanimous consent of the House for me to withdraw my private members' Motion No. 383, now in the order of precedence, on the subject of cigarette lighters and the Hazardous Products Act. The government has already taken the action intended by my private motion since it was tabled last February 6.

[Canadian Unity, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always formed a united front to face common challenges. Once more we are challenged to work together to confront the issues of our time: jobs, economic growth, safety, good government and unity. Together we shall prevail.

Together we tilled the countryside and built cities, went to war to win peace and kept peace to prevent war. We made breakthroughs in science and pioneered technologies for all citizens. We created medicare so that all Canadians, rich or poor, have equal access to top-notch health care.

I know that Quebecers and their fellow Canadians take pride in the work we have done together to make Canada what it is today: the number one nation in the world in which to live. May this pride bring victory on October 30 to a Canada united in purpose and committed to a renewed federalism that ensures we reach our full potential in the 21st century.

Long live Canada!

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the time to debate my colleague point by point. It may not be allowed, but I will do it at committee where the member sits.

As the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, I rise today to bring the sentiments of my constituents to the House during third reading debate of Bill C-64. Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, reflects the soul of our nation. It reflects our shared value of equality. It reflects our humility to recognize the presence of inequities. It reflects our ingenuity as a people to craft solutions to problems.

Systemic discrimination remains an endemic problem, a national malady, a barrier to equality in employment. In the 1960s discrimination in employment was seen as a human relations problem, the result of malice and intentional bias. Thus human rights legislation was enacted, but proved ineffective in addressing the overall problem. That is what the Reform Party would like us to do, retreat from our progress.

Pilot affirmative action programs on a voluntary basis were tested in the 1980s but they failed to achieve the desired results. Women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities continued to be disadvantaged, experiencing higher than average unemployment rates and, if employed, were often concentrated in low paying occupations and were not represented in upper management.

It soon became apparent to the national leadership of the day that discrimination resulted not only from intentional bias, but also from outdated hiring practices and systems. In other words, a seemingly unprejudicial employment policy had an adverse impact on job opportunities for certain individuals and groups because of their race, gender, colour and disability. The phrase systemic discrimination refers to this type of unintentional barrier to equality.

The persistence of this problem stirred the national consciousness at a time when a new era was dawning in Canada. In 1982 the Canadian Constitution was repatriated and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was born.

Section 15, paragraph 1 of the charter speaks of the equality of Canadians before and under the law, in benefits and in protection. What a powerful national statement on equality, one in which we can all take pride.

No doubt conscious of the presence of unintentional bias in the workplace and no doubt aware of the need to eradicate it, the framers of the charter saw to it that any future Canadian government would not be handicapped in drafting programs to treat this societal ailment.

Hence, the addition of paragraph 2 to section 15. This additional paragraph gives government the authority to design programs aimed at creating an equal and level playing field for those disadvantaged in society. It gives Parliament the authority to enact laws aimed at achieving equality, not preference, not superiority, in employment for the disadvantaged groups, laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

These two paragraphs in one section of the charter reflect Canadian ingenuity, reflect our genuine pursuit of equality and reflect our national foresight in social legislation. This section allows Canada to acknowledge, respect and accommodate the differences among her people.

Equality in the workplace does not and cannot be allowed to mean only identical treatment for all. Equality includes improving the condition of disadvantaged people or groups, which sometimes requires treating them differently to ensure equality. Thus there is maternity leave for women, to cite one example, but not for men.

Seizing on this national foresight now entrenched in the charter of rights and freedoms and wanting to redress systemic discrimination, the Liberal government of the day soon struck the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. Chaired by Justice Rosalie Abella, the commission issued its landmark report, Equality in Employment, in 1984. It confirmed that discriminatory practices, intentional or not, yielded the same outcome: low rank, low pay or no job at all.

It confirmed that certain systems and practices unwittingly may have adverse effects on certain groups in our society. Therefore it prescribed a system based approach to remedy the situation. This ultimately led to the enactment of the current Employment Equity

Act in 1986. This law has helped advance equity in employment, but not far enough.

The current federal government knew this before it took office in October 1993. It therefore sought and was given the mandate by the Canadian people to extend coverage of the act to the federal public sector and to include practical enforcement mechanisms. The government wanted to fulfil this mandate in a fashion that will further advance equality in the workplace without adding an onerous burden on employers and businesses.

Bill C-64, tabled in the House last December 12 and amended in committee and at report stage fulfils our national agenda. I was privileged earlier this year to chair the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons which conducted a full review of employment equity and obtained input from Canadians from coast to coast.

We heard from 52 associations and individuals and received 18 written submissions. The views of employers, labour organizations, designated group organizations and many interested Canadians were fairly represented in the evidence before the committee.

I am honoured to share with my colleagues in the House, my constituents and other fellow Canadians some of what we heard from witnesses.

Says the Congress of the Assembly of First Nations Chief Mercredi: "Although a lot of times Canada is presented as a nation that believes in equality of opportunity, when you really undress the country there is no equality there for aboriginal people".

Says the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: "We point out the high participation rate in the workforce of our people to stress that aboriginal people want to work but the structure of the Canadian economy seems to leave them on the outside looking in".

From the National Association of Women and the Law: "A rather bleak picture of the employment and economic situation of women is evident at a glance. In general, women occupy most of the short term jobs and are clustered in low paying services and administrative support work positions".

Says the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a coalition of some 37 national ethnic groups around the country: "The reality now is the visible minority population labour force is under utilized. That speaks to the economy of Canada and to the future of our country".

From the Canadian Paraplegic Association: "Clearly for people with disabilities there are still numerous barriers to employment-until more attention is paid to education, training and skill development for persons with disabilities, reasonable representation in the Canadian work force will continue to be an illusion".

Clearly in this body of evidence, only a sample of many, we can see the plight of disadvantaged groups.

From the Canadian Labour Congress: "By ensuring the diversity of the Canadian population is reflected in all employment areas under federal jurisdiction, the Government of Canada is creating an enriched work environment".

Says the Canadian Security Establishment: "I am pleased to advise that the establishment feels it can comply with the requirements of the bill without special consideration".

Says the RCMP: "Under the recruiting process, what we would do is hire the best and highest rated persons from all groups" in compliance still with the Employment Equity Act.

Says the CRTC: "If the ultimate goal was to sensitize people so they would do these intelligent things instinctively-then we are definitely going in that direction".

From the Canadian Bankers Association: "Canada's banks, and I speak most particularly for the six major banks, have been committed to employment equity objectives since the current act was passed in 1986. We think employment equity not only has had a positive impact on the way our organizations manage their work forces but also it has proven good for business.

Let me quote from Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: "The idea then in setting numerical goals is not to play catch up. You do not have to ask to get to the same balance as the rest of the community. You set the goals in order to pressure the employers not to discriminate. That is the objective of the setting of the goals. You choose a numerical target that would accord with how many the employer would get if he recruited vigorously, set fair job standards, and at the end of the day did not discriminate improperly". That is from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association leadership.

The chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, stated:

-let me make it clear that employment equity is not about quotas. A quota is an arbitrary number of positions in the workforce that must be filled regardless of whether qualified candidates exist for the jobs.

I hope these testimonials will convince even the doubting Thomases from across the floor that the disadvantaged groups, their advocates and civil libertarians of renown are not the only supporters of Bill C-64. Employers from all sectors equally praise the bill. They recognize that equity in employment enhances productivity and business and inspires initiative and creativity.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has already refuted the myth the Reform Party wanted to propagate about qualifications, merit and quotas. Those issues have been dealt with

by the bill. For the sake of time I refer the hon. member opposite to the bill to see for himself his arguments are flawed.

During debate he told us he would object to census taking because it would ask for the individual's race. I am not afraid and I am not ashamed of my race. I am not ashamed of my heritage.

If he is really concerned that Canadians from the Portuguese community are now not covered under the act, that is true. If they are determined disadvantaged, then they will be given programs by the government. That is one beauty of having this type of census, so that we can get the facts and figures we need to formulate good, sensitive legislation which will answer the needs of Canadians.

I repeat the bill is not about redressing the past mistakes of history. It is about not wanting the past mistakes of history to be repeated on our present and future generations.

I heard earlier in the debate about wanting to hire the best qualified. I believe the Reform Party would be surprised at one of the witnesses from the Manitoba Telephone System, Ms. Katawne, director:

I would suggest that those people who believe it is a highly scientific art to determine who the best qualified person is are dreaming. They are in la-la land. That is not what happens on a selection committee.

We need an employment equity act.

In addition to making several clause by clause amendments to the bill, our committee issued a separate narrative report entitled "Employment Equity: A Commitment to Merit". I suggest that members who object to the bill give it careful study. I hope at that time they will have a change of mind and a change of heart. The report reflects the committee's confidence that Canada's new employment equity law will ensure the pre-eminence of merit and the elimination of systemic discrimination in employment practices.

What we have in the bill is a win-win situation for employers and employees alike. The report and the bill reflect the uniqueness of Canada as a leader among nations, committed to excellence in human endeavour and profoundly committed to social justice in general and to employment equity in particular.

Chairing the national hearings on Bill C-64 was a very meaningful experience for yours truly. It reconfirmed for me why I am so proud to be a Canadian.

Let me close with something I will always carry with me from my time as chair of the committee that studied this bill. It is a letter from the Filipino Technical Professional Association of Manitoba, an ethnic community to which I proudly belong.

The association stated that its members were proud of the efforts of the Canadian government to show the world that we as a society care about our citizens' human rights and shared the pride that the United Nations recognized Canada as the number one country in the world in which to live.

It emphasized there are already a lot of skilled immigrants and new citizens in Canada unable to get a job in their respective fields of training and experience because their professional credentials and training are not systematically given recognition. There is not even an orderly process for accreditation. Employers in a lot of cases insist on Canadian experience which also closes a lot of doors for employment. To the members of the association this amounts to no less than systemic discrimination.

I can certainly agree with its view that it is very distressing and undignified for a person to be systematically prohibited from practising his or her chosen career which he or she spent a lot of years mastering.

It recognizes, as I do, that employment equity may be one way of dealing with this problem, but again this will not work if systemic barriers are not dealt with.

Working together we can carry on this country's proud tradition of championing equality, creating opportunity and building a better country for us all. Employment equity is Canada's commitment to merit to social justice, a framework for awareness, a search for inclusion, a win-win for all. Canada has a duty to oblige.

I am proud to be part of a government that has taken the leadership. I therefore urge all hon. members from across the floor in the Chamber to join together and vote in favour of Bill C-64.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would yield to my hon. colleague from Toronto. However, I thank her for the privilege.

Speaking very briefly to this amendment, I would like to refute some of the misinterpretations, though not done with malice, by the hon. member.

He indicated in his opening remarks that while subsection 15(1) talks about the equality of all Canadians, in essence he argued that subsection 15(2) negates this by saying that we are not equal because of race. That to me is a misinterpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have more faith in the framers, fathers, and parents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think what section 15 tells us is that we should have equal benefit and protection of the law, all Canadians on an equal basis, irrespective of race, disability, origin, or gender. At the same time, subsection 15(2) deals with disadvantaged people, as visible minorities may be, people of First Nations origin, women, and persons with disabilities.

In subsection 15(2) the framers of our charter of rights and freedoms were trying to prevent possible dilatory tactics on the part of people who would complain that government can introduce legislation that will address those very disadvantages. They are not being given advantages; they are only being restored to equality. They are disadvantaged, so we must restore them to equality. They are not being restored to superiority. I think that has to be made very clear to all Canadians.

Therefore subsections 15(1) and (2) demonstrate the ingenuity of Canadians.

In his opening remarks the hon. member indicated that quota is a way of giving advantages. For the same reason, it is not. On a very close reading of the bill itself, quota is prohibited. How clear can we be? The law as proposed and tabled in the House states that no one may impose a quota, not even the enforcement officer. We have to forget about this being quotas.

Certainly the member in trying to sustain his argument about quotas indicated those people in this disadvantaged group are to be employed in the proportion they exist in the population in the community. That is wrong. That is not what the bill states. The bill states that it is in proportion to the available qualified people. Why not? Why would one argue against the qualification of others only because of colour, disability, origin or gender? The bill states that it is in proportion to the number of qualified people, again sustaining the principle of equality.

On the point of census on race, as I indicated to the media, we have nothing to be ashamed of when we are asked that we should say that we are Canadians. The census is one taken among Canadians. Therefore it is a given that this is a census of Canadians. If we are asked about our origins and our heritage, we should be proud. I am proud to be a Filipino Canadian. The Jews are proud to be Jewish Canadians. Ukrainians are proud because they are Canadians as well. We are proud of our heritage. That is what our nation has taught us. It has given us self-confidence, self-worth and dignity.

On the motion itself, I agree with the hon. member that this is an example of co-operation taking place in the House. It is also a clear example that the government, when it sees a good amendment, tries to improve on it and makes it even better. We deal in this amendment, which was reached by consensus by all parties in the House, with non-fulfilment of the employment equity plan as a consequence of a poor identification that is based on self-identification.

I call to the House's attention that with this improved amendment we have also sustained another principle, confidentiality. I see the member who originally proposed the motion is smiling. I think this is what reconciliation is all about. We should be able to have a new principle without killing another principle. We should have one principle strengthen the other. Here we are preserving the principle of confidentiality.

Why does the government agree to this amendment, which was also refined by the government? It is because we heard witnesses acknowledge the limitations of the self-identification system. However, witnesses have also told the committee that we must retain the privacy and confidentiality of information. Obviously, we have to reconcile these two views.

We were not shown any other method by which to identify except by coercion. We agreed at the committee level that coercion would do more harm than good. Therefore, in the absence of an alternative tool, in the absence of limitation, the committee initiated that we should retain the self-identification approach. However, at the same time, the committee proposed that there be more openness on the part of employers to hold employer and employee meetings on a regular basis so that there would be a feeling of rapport between employees and employers. At the same time information sessions must be held by the employers to inform employees of the importance of identifying themselves so we can truly monitor the progress of employment equity in a given workplace.

As well, the committee recommended that managers in those businesses be given special training to enable them to be more persuasive of the need for self-identification.

On the issue of self-identification, in the spirit of this act it is very critical that the process be held in a climate or atmosphere of trust and confidentiality. It can only be accomplished if we truly convince employees that the purpose of self-identification is to ensure employment equity in the workplace. Nobody would disagree with that kind of approach.

On that note, I am pleased we have been able to arrive at the motion proposed by the member for Edmonton Southwest that has refined by the government. It is a classic example that the government always listens to good proposals whether they come from the opposition or from its own members.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to Motion No. 7 that is before us.

I congratulate the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who has been an excellent member of the committee on human rights which I had the privilege of chairing and which looked into bill before the House today. The member made a lot of useful contributions to the committee. I am glad he affixed his signature to the majority report.

There are still sentiments the particular member would like to continue to advance. I respect his need to see to it that employees' representatives be at the management table. Although he indicated that the amendment would not result in co-management, I think there are grave doubts and concerns about the amendment. That is why the majority of committee members saw to it that it would not happen.

Why was that? It was because one of the underlying principles of the bill was a balanced approach to the setting of plans and the implementation of the employment equity plan. In that so-called balanced approach we must ensure that as we invoke obligations for employers we do not provide them with unnecessary' onerous and impractical burdens. Were the employees to be given this right despite the disclaimer it is very conceivable that it can be construed as a co-management approach. Certainly we feel it will add a real burden for businesses in particular.

In recognition of the contribution of the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve we amended the bill to see to it that employers and employees collaborate and consult in the preparation of the plan. We would have liked to have seen the employees' representatives being in on the co-management approach. In the spirit of co-operation at committee level we saw to it that employers would provide information to the employees about the purpose of the employment equity measures of the bill to be undertaken to implement a given employment equity plan.

The committee also made the point that the bill would not require public availability of employment equity plans which, to be effective, would contain confidential and proprietary information on the part of businesses. Every member of the House would like to see to it that we do not divulge what businesses feel are their proprietary properties and therefore necessary to ensure their competitive advantage in the business world.

We feel we must reject the amendment. In effect it would take the prerogative of management from employers. It would impose an impractical burden on them. Since the act in its totality imposes that legal obligation only on employers for failure to set and adopt an employment equity plan, it is only fair that this kind of

responsibility rests solely with employers where the legal obligation rests.

I can conceive of one possibility, for example. In the process of the joint approach to the development of the plan the bargaining agent for the employees, for reasons not related to the implementation of the equity plan, could stall or delay the finalization of the plan for reasons other than related to the employment equity plan. It would delay what we would like to have happen. On that basis we have to continue to retain the prerogative of the act to give the obligation, responsibility and privilege to employers.

Briefly, again to put into context the motion before us, why it is important that we not overburden employers? In the beginning the employment equity concept in Canada started as a consequence of bias, of prejudice against employers. Those instances happened before the sixties and in the sixties the practice was recognized. Human rights legislation was enacted to potentially correct the biases and discrimination.

It proved to be those approaches were not sufficient and so came the second phase in the evolution of the concept, that there exists systemic barriers in the system, unintended bias one may call it, systemic discrimination, but not without malice.

To solve the problem of systemic barriers it is important to get the full co-operation of employers and the business side. It is important that we do not introduce any kind of provision in the act that businesses will see as an additional burden.

Canada should be proud today that in so far as the employment equity legislation is concerned we nearly have unanimous support from the business community at large. We should thank that community for its confidence in the initiative of the government. We should continue to recognize that privilege. If we work on a co-operative and collaborative basis, the more we will achieve. Canada is unique in that regard. I can sense the hon. member is now agreeing to the arguments I am proposing.

We welcome the contribution of the member, but I feel we should reject the motion for the reasons I have indicated. We need the full provisions of the employment equity law in Canada and we need to reinforce it very strongly. Now that we have extended the coverage and now that we have invoked an enforcement mechanism, the world is looking at us as a model. Contrary to an earlier amendment from the third party, we have embarked upon a new milestone, the further evolution of the concept of employment equity.

As I said earlier in the debate on another motion, the committee in its wisdom respecting employment equity made a commitment to merit. I think even Mr. Speaker is smiling at the beauty of this report.

I ask members to reject this motion.