John Bryden

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-64, which would amend the current federal Employment Equity Act principally in the matter of introducing an enforcement regime. It is targeted at private sector enterprises of 100 employees or more that do business with the federal government. That encompasses hundreds and possibly thousands of private sector companies, any in fact who get a government contract.

I want to speak as a government MP because I am unhappy with this bill. I feel it is my duty to do so, even though I am but a single voice perhaps among my government colleagues. I must express my deep, deep reservations about this legislation.

In my view, Bill C-64 is seriously flawed. It is being rushed into law without the benefit of the careful consideration that is due any legislation that comes before this House.

First let me say that I do not doubt the government's nobility of purpose and sincerity of motive in bringing Bill C-64 forward. Strengthening the federal employment equity legislation was a red book commitment made by the Liberal Party prior to the last general election. A government that tries to live up to its promises cannot be faulted for trying to do so. Indeed, being faithful to one's promise is something all Canadians admire and applaud. Moreover, who is to argue against the desire to see that all Canadians have equal opportunity for employment and that no one is discriminated against on the basis of gender, non-relevant disability, or race? The noble purpose is noble indeed.

However, the fact that Bill C-64 springs from a promise is possibly one of the reasons it has come this far without adequate consideration of the huge problems it seems likely to create. It goes absolutely against some of the most basic concepts of justice and fair play, and in seeking to eradicate discrimination sets the stage for encouraging it.

I have to believe-and I do-that it has come this far because the government bureaucrats who framed it clause by clause did so more with a view to satisfying the government's desire to fulfil its promises quickly than to writing competent legislation. I find it hard to believe that professionals could have drafted something so obviously faulty.

I am not a lawyer, but it does not take a lawyer to see what is wrong with Bill C-64. Any Canadian knows the very essence of our democracy and our freedoms is predicated on the concepts that all are equal before the law and that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. When Bill C-64 is tested against these two principles it fails.

Let us consider the fair trial aspect. Bill C-64 requires that the target employers prepare equity employment plans and give an accounting annually of their progress in fulfilling these plans. I will spare the details, but suffice it to say that Bill C-64 describes

minutely what it expects of employers when it comes to trying to achieve balance in the hiring of aboriginals, women, visible minorities, and the disabled.

To ensure these employers are fulfilling the requirements of the act, Bill C-64 provides for the creation of compliance officers, a kind of equity police administered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who are given the power to enter a company's premises and demand to see its books to ensure the company does have an appropriate equity plan and that it is acting upon it. Right here there is a problem. Mr. Speaker, I would remind you of the outcry that swept the nation when Bill C-68, the gun bill, proposed similar entry and search provisions to ensure compliance. Here we are apparently doing the same thing.

I suppose the argument, which I can hardly say is being debated either through public hearings or in this House, is that these compliance officers are equivalent to inspectors who come onto your premises to inspect elevators or read a gas meter. However, Bill C-64 gives these compliance officers extraordinary powers. If a company tries to deny them, the company can be taken to court, but not to any court as Canadians have come to understand the term. The court, which decides the guilt or innocence of a company and which ultimately decides on fines of up to $50,000, is a sub-tribunal of the existing human rights tribunal panel, whose president can name from one to three people to hear a case. There is no bar exam for these people to pass, no vetting by the elected representatives of the people. The president of the human rights tribunal panel gets to select whomever he pleases.

Tribunal is an appropriate term in this case. The word is very ancient, going back to Roman times, but it was in the Middle Ages and during the French Revolution that it acquired the connotation of drum-head justice, of people being hauled before citizen adjudicators who meted out punishment according to the temper or the distemper of the times.

The only real requirement to be a judge on the equity tribunals that Bill C-64 sets up is that the person so named be familiar with the equity employment theory and practice. Is that not the most eloquent invitation to bias you have ever heard? Will not the temptation to appoint employment equity activists simply be overwhelming? Will these tribunal judges not have more of an eye toward being politically correct rather than fair to the accused, to the company contesting the assessment of a compliance officer?

It gets worse. The equity tribunals that Bill C-64 sets up are courts of no appeal. The legislation specifically states that a company convicted by the tribunal has no recourse to another court unless on a technicality. There is no appeal. Whoever heard of such a thing? Even convicted murderers have the option of trying to appeal, but not an employer who fails to file an equity employment plan to the satisfaction of an equity employment tribunal.

I should note, however, that the action of initiating the levying of a fine against a company is to come from the Minister of Human Resources Development. The tribunal's role is to concur or not concur. Let us be candid here. The Minister of Human Resources Development we are talking about is not the political minister but the bureaucrats under him. If action leading to a fine is taken it will be by the deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister or an assistant to the assistant deputy minister. It will be a decision of the bureaucracy based on the recommendation of the human rights commission.

While I am entirely confident that the current Minister of Human Resources Development will always stay on top of his department and will personally review any proposal for a penalty against a private sector employer, how can we be sure that some future Minister of Human Resources Development will not get preoccupied and leave such decisions to the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister or so on? This could be even worse than the tribunal. The ultimate decision to penalize a company will rest with the bureaucrats. They will decide. Although I believe that Canada's federal civil service is the best in the world, I question its understanding of and sympathy for the problems of private sector employers.

There is another reality. I hate to sound cynical, but these employment equity amendments may give even low-level bureaucrats a big stick. Companies vying for lucrative government contracts could be stopped in their tracks by the threat of employment equity complaints. They could be held to ransom by the unscrupulous. This may never be, but while 95 per cent of the people are honest, we have to watch out for that 5 per cent who are not.

If a company is trying to land a $100 million contract and a compliance officer suddenly says its employment equity plan is inadequate, what will occur? Bill C-64 makes no provision for policing the equity police.

The other major area of difficulty in Bill C-64 has to do with the fact that it exempts employers who would hire only aboriginals. I could speak at equal length about this problem, as it is equally fundamental and crucial. Suffice it to say that a bill that purports to try to eliminate discrimination actually condones it when it exempts a large group of Canadians solely by virtue of race. This is entirely contrary to the concept that we are all equal before the law. It is better to throw out a law entirely if it requires a clause that treats one Canadian differently than another based on birth rather

than merit. This is exactly what Bill C-64 does. This is unfortunate. It sows the seeds of anger and conflict.

This all appears so obvious to me. I have to acknowledge that I am only a layman in legal matters, as was the majority of MPs who considered this bill in committee. Naturally I want to know what Canada's legal community has had to say about this legislation. Does it share my misgivings? There is no way of knowing. Other than the National Association of Women and the Law no lawyers' groups testified before the committee. I suspect they were never invited. Government funded special interest groups however were well represented.

There is my dilemma as a government MP. I see fundamental problems with Bill C-64 of a legalistic nature but little evidence that the legal experts have been consulted. It is wrong to leave it to the courts to decide after a bill has passed. We are supposed to iron out the problems beforehand.

I do not believe this has been done. The trouble is I can do nothing but stand here and speak. The bill went to committee after first reading, enabling it to be flipped through report stage and second reading to a vote in five consecutive sitting days of this House of Commons. Five consecutive days, that is all.

There were no committee hearings following second reading as normally is the practice. There has been no chance for me to see my misgivings put to rest by asking the standing committee to summon expert witnesses who could comment on my concerns.

I would like to have heard the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association on this legislation. No chance now. I would like to have lobbied my fellow MPs to get them to study the bill and express their opinions. No chance now. I would like to have heard from retired judges of long experience. No chance now.

It is curious. I am a first time MP. I never dreamed, ever, that laws were created in this fashion.

[Access To Information Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that was very well done, if I may say.

I will make my remarks brief. I rise to speak in support of Bill C-309. It is a pleasure to do so. I believe reform of the Access to Information Act is very necessary and long overdue. My feeling on Bill C-309 is that while I support it wholeheartedly, it does not go anywhere near far enough. The time has come, in the name of opening up government, in the name of opening up the bureaucracy, to review the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

I have had a lot of experience with the Access to Information Act over the years, particularly in the matter of getting historic records. As the member for Broadview-Greenwood said, the act as originally designed is not the act as it is currently practised. We have a situation where an act that was originally intended to open up government documents is now being used in many instances to withhold government documents.

I want to say to the member for Red Deer that I join him in supporting this bill and putting this bill forward. I hope it is a first step for a complete overhaul of both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with the government on this motion.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motions put forward by the Reform Party on Bill C-64. This bill concerns me very much. The government certainly has Canadians' best interests at heart in this bill. It is attempting to redress problems in the workplace.

However, I find myself giving some qualified support to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and Motions Nos. 15 to 17. These motions would eliminate clauses 18, 19 and 20 from the bill which are basically targeted toward private sector employers.

I have great respect for colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken on this subject because it is a subject we all feel very deeply about. I have serious reservations about implementing an employment equity program first for government employees and then extending it by whatever means to private sector employees.

The problems with clauses 18, 19 and 20 are they require very elaborate reporting from private sector employers about their equity programs and as addressed in Motions Nos. 15 to 17, provide penalties if they do not comply.

Private sector employers are required to give salary ranges of their employees who are in the designated group, the degree of representation of these designated persons, and it goes on about various subdivisions in order to give the government an opportunity to establish whether private sector employers are fulfilling the intentions of the act in their employment practices.

While the act unequivocally says decision by merit will be the underlying principle, unfortunately the way it is phrased it gives discretion to bureaucrats to determine whether an employer is fulfilling the obligations as described in clauses 18, 19 and 20. This sets us on a dangerous course for our social liberties as a country.

However well intended we are, this does create the opportunity for bureaucracies to determine what private employers are doing.

I hate to use the extreme case, but we would have a situation akin to big brother. Any bureaucrat may interpret the legislation. No matter how well phrased, there is an opportunity for interpretation. Unfortunately there could be a degree of political correctness, although I hate to use that term as well. There could be a mindset in the bureaucracy of a less generous interpretation of how private sector employers are treating visible minorities, women, the disabled and other designated groups.

This becomes very crucial when penalty is added. This is covered by Motions Nos. 15 to 17. Clause 36 of the act provides for a penalty of up to $10,000 for a first violation and $50,000 for a repeated or for continued violations. These violations involve failure to report or failure to fully meet the criteria in other legislation.

I have great difficulty with that because when we apply penalties the misdemeanour should be very clear. It should never be open to interpretation. It is my fear that as the bill is written it does put an unfortunate and undue obligation on private sector employers.

I recently came from the private sector and I can assure members that while the public sector may be behind in its treatment and hiring of designated groups, most private sector employers I know hire on merit and certainly try to represent all groups that come forward, and not in a discriminatory fashion.

It is very dangerous to think we can legislate away discrimination.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from the constituents of Hamilton-Wentworth. They call on Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all the necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. We are very much on side on the issue. The Government of Canada and all governments should favour, where they can, placing advertisements in Canadian publications.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no, I would not do it to that extent at all. Bill C-103 addresses the problem perfectly and is entirely adequate as it stands.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat should look at the Canadian Football League or the various sports industries in Canada. He would see what happens when a cultural industry driven by profit is in direct competition with the United States. We are losing some of those cultural sporting industries. In the case of the printed word we cannot afford to lose it in a similar fashion. It is essential to our democracy, our freedom and our identity as Canadians.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-103. I must say at the outset that I find it supremely ironic that in Parliament support for the bill should come from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, who stand for promoting a separate culture, and that opposition to the bill comes from the Reform Party, which surely should stand to promote Canadian culture at any opportunity.

I begin by making some comments on the remarks delivered by the member for Medicine Hat, who says that the bill represents a kind of cultural protectionism, which is no longer appropriate. This is a bill that deals with cultural protectionism and is very appropriate. I feel that some of my colleagues in the House, particularly in the third party, do not seem to appreciate the central role the spoken and written word has in the viability of a nation, the viability of its institutions as well as the viability of its entertainment and cultural industries.

Certainly in English speaking Canada the publication industry, whether it is books, magazines or newspapers, has been under economic pressure for a long time. In Canada we believe in free

speech, which is tied with the independence of media agencies delivering the message from Canadians. Consequently, it is essential that these industries that deliver this cultural message in books, magazines or newspapers remain viable.

The sad reality is, as other members have mentioned, that we are a country one-tenth the size of the United States. What happens, for example, in books alone is that an author who is lucky enough to persuade a publisher that his book is worth while and it might sell on the open market will be very fortunate if he sells enough copies to earn perhaps $8,000 or $9,000 a year from that one book. However, because the United States is 10 times as big, a similar author with a similar book can make a living at it. He can make from $70,000 to $80,000 from that single book. This is the way it is with books and with newspapers. Newspapers these days have come under enormous advertising pressure: the shortage of advertising, the lack of circulation and competition from the United States.

When next in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, visit the Toronto Star at 1 Yonge Street, Canada's largest newspaper. You will find outside on the sidewalk various news boxes. Among those news boxes you will see U.S.A. Today . There is a very active market in this country for American publications and newspaper publications.

Mr. Speaker, I will take you back to your childhood for a little bit. I will bet at one time you sold magazines. It used to be very common to sell magazines as a child to make a bit of money. I did that when I was a kid. I remember vividly that most of the magazines I had to sell were American magazines. The reality is that we are a country dominated by the American cultural industries. There is no getting around it. To ignore this is to ignore a fundamental reality.

It is with irony that I listened to the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. She spoke very finely on the issue of the need for Canadian cultural protection. The irony is that English speaking Canada is under the greatest pressure. Here we have a member of the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebecoise, defending English culture in this country. She is quite right that we have to subsidize, support and build a certain amount of protectionism around the magazine industry because of the phenomenon of split runs. That is a very real problem. It is true that the Canadian periodicals will suffer adversely from that.

Ironically French language periodicals do not have the same problem. Therefore I was very pleased to hear her defend the government's initiative in this regard with respect to split run publications. However, best of all, she took the debate one step further, which I really like, and she raised the question of the GST.

The one thing I could never understand as a former journalist and a some time author is any government that could put a tax on books. We actually have in this country a tax on reading. If ever there was a regressive tax that has set us back, particularly in English speaking Canada, it is this tax on reading.

I say to the Reform Party that it does not understand how difficult it is to get the word out as an author, a writer or as a journalist in this country, particularly when we are English speaking, because we are in overwhelming competition with the Americans to the south. The previous government put a tax on books which damages the periodical industry. It lost 6 per cent of its circulation. Authors of books suffered.

The member from the official opposition made a very good point when she suggested the GST be dropped from all publications and reading material. I support her 100 per cent on that. That recommendation from the task force on the magazine industry is not in Bill C-103, although I am confident the government will make that alteration when it addresses the problem of the GST. I hope we will see that change in the next budget.

Finally I would like to make a comment concerning the member's comments on postal subsidies. Again I believe she is right on the money there. In this case it is a question of distributing Canadian newspapers as well as magazines. We would do well to do anything in our power to make sure the Canadian point of view gets out to Canadians. If we do not back up our own authors, our own writers, our own journalists, our own publications, then at least English Canada is going to slide into the United States and the separatists will get their way by default.

[Lacrosse, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those imploring the Minister of Canadian Heritage to restore funding for lacrosse, a uniquely Canadian sport.

I would remind my colleagues that lacrosse is central to one of the most famous stories in Canadian history, the capture of Fort Michilimackinac during the Indian uprising of 1763 led by the great Indian chief Pontiac. Members will recall that the Ojibway, allies of the French at the time, played lacrosse just outside the fort, much to the amusement of the British garrison. When the ball was deliberately flung over the palisade, the British made the fatal mistake of opening the gates to allow the Indians to retrieve it.

Thus the balance of power, despite the fall of Quebec, shifted away from the British and toward the French. So it has happened in Canada from time to time ever since.

It would be a great disservice to Canada's founding peoples, aboriginals, francophones and anglophones, to allow lacrosse to perish. It is a vital part of our shared history and culture as Canadians.

[Petitions, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition with over 2,800 signatures from my constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth calling on Parliament not to support the closure of Mount Hope, the Hamilton weather office, since it would adversely affect the safety of both aviation and marine operations as well as the agricultural community, local businesses, and recreational interests.

This is a very fine facility at the Hamilton airport and I fully endorse this petition.