Ian McClelland

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

moved, by unanimous consent:

That Bill C-64, in clause 25, be amended by adding after line 30, on page 18, the following:

"1.1 Where

(a) an employer has been informed of a non-compliance by a compliance officer under subsection (1) and the finding of non-compliance is based, in whole or in part, on the apparent under-representation of the aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities or persons with disabilities in the employer's work force, as reflected in the employer's work force analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a), and

(b) the employer believes that the apparent under-representation is attributable to the decision of employees who may be members of the designated groups concerned not to identify themselves as such or not to agree to be identified by the employer under subsection 9(2), the employer may inform the compliance officer of such.

(1.2) Where the employer satisfies the compliance officer that the finding of non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason described in paragraph (1.1)(b) and that the employer has made all reasonable efforts to implement the employment equity, the compliance officer shall take the reason into account in exercising any powers under this section.

(1.3) In satisfying the compliance officer under subsection (1.2) that the finding of non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason mentioned in paragraph (1.1)(b), the employer must do so by means other than the identification of individual employees in its work force that the employer believes are members of designated groups who have not identified themselves as such, or agreed to be identified by the employer as such, under subsection 9(2)."

Mr. Speaker, those thousands of Canadians watching this on television have just seen that we really do earn our keep from time to time.

The amendment speaks to the fact we live in the land of employment equity or affirmative action. Because this is the first time today in which we are going to be speaking to Bill C-64, I should bring to the attention of those hundreds of thousands of Canadians glued to their television sets wondering what is going on that this bill is the affirmative action or employment equity bill.

Employment equity is a phrase coined by Judge Abella about 15 years ago to describe affirmative action because there were people who felt that affirmative action really did not find a lot of popularity in the land. So we are living with employment equity.

Bill C-64 would expand the notion of affirmative action in the federal workforce to everyone covered by the Treasury Board and to any company in the private sector doing business with the Government of Canada with 100 employees or more.

On the face of it, who would argue with the notion of affirmative action or employment equity-except that employment or any advantage or anything in our society based on race or on quotas is inherently discriminatory.

One of the very first articles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms speaks to the notion of all Canadians being equal. Then the next paragraph says except those Canadians who are in specific designated groups and these Canadians may be assisted at the expense of the equality of everyone by special advantages. If that were not in the charter this amendment would certainly not see the light of day, because it would be against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is the kind of anomaly we have to understand and somehow work around. Here we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says this kind of discrimination should not exist in our land, and then we say we will allow this kind of discrimination. The net result is that we have affirmative action laws. We have a system whereby people are able to gain promotion or gain employment or advantages of some description based on a quota.

As members know, today we are speaking to the amendments. We are supposed to be keeping our comments closely related to the amendment before us. The amendment I am speaking to relates to the responsibilities of the compliance officer.

We are now living in a country that is under the rule of employment equity or affirmative action. That means that certain employers, including the federal government, and certainly all of the private sector employers who have 100 employees or more, will wake up one day to a knock on the door. The knock on the door

will be from the compliance officer who is representing the federal government. The compliance officer will have significant powers to be able to delve into the affairs of the company to see if the employer is in compliance with the legislation, and the employer must prove it.

This is where race questions come in on the forthcoming census. This is why the questions about race have to be asked. The compliance officer will say that according to the last census, in a certain geographic area there are a certain number of green people, a certain number of yellow people, a certain number of people who speak this language and that language, and therefore the employer must employ people in the same proportion as the people in that community and they will be given quotas.

The employer will say that normally they hire the best people; it does not matter who they are or what their education is, what their sex is, they are hired on merit. The compliance officer will say they will have to take affirmative action into the mix, that they cannot just hire on merit any more, they have to look at both of the equations. Then the employer says come in and have a look around and see what we have.

Let us say that in a room there are 20 people working, and every one of them is from a visible minority or from some other designated group. The compliance officer looks at his list and says it says on the sheet that they do not have anybody who self-identifies as one of the disadvantaged groups. If you look around, my God, everybody in the place is in the designated group.

The problem is that we Canadians do not get up in the morning and ask what part of what victim group we are in and look for the support of the state to get anywhere in my life, seeking advantages that are not common to everybody.

In the purview of the House of Commons there are 1,700 employees. Recently, people were asked to voluntarily identify themselves as to what designated group they fall into. Only 50 people said they fell into one of these designated groups. Only 30 per cent of the people responded. That is not the kind of people Canadians are. We do not respond to that. We do not want a constitution or laws based on race. We want laws based on the equality of all individuals.

In any event, we have this legislation and we have pointed out the error, the problem, or the hole in it. The government looked at it and very wisely assumed our counsel and said we had a good point.

We do not like the legislation and we will vote against it. If we can improve it we will try because when we wake up in the morning it will be in the driveway.

I visited my brother-in-law a few years ago. He was looking at a new motorcycle and he had the brochure on the kitchen table. His wife came home, saw the brochure, and went ballistic. He asked her why she got so mad and she said "Because the brochure is on the kitchen table today and tomorrow the motorcycle will be in the driveway". That is the same story on this legislation. Today the brochure is on the table and tomorrow the legislation will be in the driveway, and there is nothing we can do about it. The government has its massive majority and it is going to push the legislation through come hell or high water. We must try to make it better in any little way we can.

Giving credit where credit is due, the government saw that the amendment improved the legislation and it made an amendment that improved the amendment we submitted. We end up with better legislation, which is how the House works from time to time.

I am speaking in support of the amendment, which will make this draconian legislation a little less draconian, perhaps a bit better. There is a ray of sunshine and light that comes into the House from time to time.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Liberal members, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, I would ask for unanimous consent to amend my motion. The amendment has been put together in consultation with the government and will improve my motion.

The table officers are already in possession of the amendment, so we would ask unanimous consent at this time to replace the motion.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Liberals, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party yesterday, we agreed and would seek unanimous agreement to amend clause 25 which will be debated as part of group 5, with an amendment already given to-

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am rising to speak in support of my colleague's motion.

Members present all know that this legislation is going to go through come hell or high water, so the very least we can try to do is make it better. This motion by my hon. colleague does make it better. It ensures that the workers, the people who are intimately involved in this, have a say in what goes on.

As long as we are going to have this employment equity or affirmative action, the very least we can do is try to make sure it is going to work. The motion put forward by my colleague from the Bloc will go a long way in helping to ensure that it does work. Therefore, I rise to make the point that we are in support of this motion.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

I hear wails of outrage from members opposite. I can understand that. However the foundation on which this bill rests is faulty. It is false. The foundation is that somehow or other Canadians are a mean, regressive, racist, discriminating people. Canadians are nothing of the sort. We are not that. We do not need the federal government creating more paperwork, more book work, in order to do what it feels, I am sure, is the right thing, to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

When debate on third reading unfolds we will make it abundantly clear that no such discrimination exists in the workplace. The workplace, particularly outside the federal government, is progressive. Industry leads. It is a totally unnecessary law.

I know we are all going to have an opportunity to say what we wish to say about Bill C-64 when it comes to third reading and I will leave my introductory comments at that.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-64, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 6, with the following: b ) to hire or promote any but the best qualified persons;''.

Mr. Speaker, this section of Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act, otherwise known as affirmative action, goes right back to the start and I would merely add to earlier comments I made. I should put this in some context for members in the House who, unfortunately, were not here earlier today to hear my initial comments on the bill and for those many thousands of Canadians watching on television.

Bill C-64 is the Employment Equity Act brought forward by the Liberal government. Employment equity is a phrase coined by Judge Abella about 12 or 13 years ago, in the full understanding that affirmative action would never sell in Canada. To make it politically correct it was given a new name and it became employment equity rather than affirmative action.

Here we are with affirmative action in the guise of employment equity.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

He said that it was not necessary.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-64, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 44, on page 2 and lines 1 to 6, on page 3.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Madam Speaker, for the benefit of members present who may not be entirely familiar with this bill and for the benefit of those thousands of Canadians earnestly watching this on television wondering what on earth this is all about, we are talking about the affirmative action bill of this Parliament. It is officially entitled employment equity.

What this bill purports to do is primarily to the public service, but any private companies of 100 employees or more doing business with the federal government are going to be going through substantially more hoops than they have in the past in meeting quotas for employment.

The amendments the Speaker has mentioned all have to do with three separate and distinct criteria. They are to remove the effects of this bill from application to the private sector.

If it is the Liberal government's intent to foist employment equity or affirmative action on the operations of the Government of Canada there is little the opposition can do because the government is going to do what it wants to do. However this should be carefully considered as it applies to the private sector. Private sector employers have enough trouble these days without adding one more hurdle for them to overcome.

I would also point out that the private sector by and large is light years ahead of the government in its relationship with minority groups. Much of what is done by the private sector is done in enlightened self-interest. There is nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest. A company will hire from those available the very best people it can get. They should not be acquired by a quota system, no matter how that quota system is comfortably or carefully disguised as employment equity. It is still affirmative action. It is still reverse discrimination. It still purports to set out that people are able to get jobs, advancement or opportunities based on human characteristics rather than merit.

The other amendments I have proposed that we will be discussing, and we would ask the government to consider carefully, are that the sole criteria for advancement or employment be merit. It should be understood that although there are items in the bill that purport to say that merit has not been taken out, we think it would be improved if we were to explicitly say that yes, the Government of Canada understands and appreciates and affirms that merit will be the sole criteria on which people will be hired, on which people will be promoted and any distinction within the employment will be based solely on merit.

The Speaker mentioned quite a number of amendments. Most of those amendments are consequential amendments that have to do with making sure that if there is an amendment, for example, to clause 3(2)(i) that those amendments follow through. Most of them really do not have any consequence. We are talking about just three major philosophical ideas in all of these amendments.

The third is that there is quite a convoluted procedure whereby people must identify themselves to the responsible officer to make sure that the employment equity or affirmative action targets or quotas are met. The person from the government comes in and says: "Hi, I am from the government. I am here to help you", snicker, snicker. The person comes in and says: "I am from the government, I am your employment equity or affirmative action officer and I am checking to see if you are in compliance".

Suppose this person goes into a room and everybody working in the room is black. There are 20 people working in the room. The person from the government looks at a piece of paper and notes that everyone has identified themselves as Canadians. They have not said that they are black; they have not said that they are yellow, white or green or whatever colour they might be. They have said: "We are Canadians". Technically they would not be in compliance.

This gives the compliance officer the chance to use some common sense and say: "Wait a minute, these people are definitely in compliance with the spirit of the law, if not with the letter of the law". It gives the compliance officer a little bit of flexibility.

These are the three major thrusts of the amendments we would ask the House to carefully consider before automatically saying: "We are not going to consider any of these amendments".

That concludes my short remarks on Bill C-64 at this time. We will have a lot more to say on this subject when it is debated at third reading.

[The Underground Economy, September 27th, 1995]

I would be very surprised, delighted. Members opposite say that I will be surprised. I take that as a reaffirmation of the promise made during the election to get rid of the GST. You heard it here first. Once again the Liberals opposite are affirming their promise to get rid of the GST.

We should hope that perhaps the way they will do it is to get behind the notion of a flat tax and work with us and other parties, with members opposite like the member for Broadview-Greenwood, who has been working at developing a notion of the single tax for years. Finally it seems like this might be the opportunity. Let us put all of our energies together to cure the cold and not the symptom.

[The Underground Economy, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I start to make a few comments about this bill, I would first like to recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South, who proposed this motion. I would like to acknowledge the fact that it is aimed at correcting a serious problem we have in our country, which is the evasion of taxes, specifically the GST.

As the GST is such a magnet for all of the discomfort and discontent with the tax system in the country, it is not seen by the ordinary citizen as theft. It is not seen as stealing from each other by evading the GST.

I think the hon. member opposite has brought to the House a very important consideration. The social contract we all have is based on the premise of fairness, that we are all going to pay our fair share and that we will do so more or less willingly, provided everybody else is paying a fair share.

When we combine the fact that the GST is such a horribly unpopular tax with the fact that the average Canadian is just barely getting by and does not like to pay the tax in the first place, there is very fertile ground for tax avoidance. When people avoid paying taxes that are legitimately owed it means that somebody else is carrying their load, and that is just not right.

I want to commend the member opposite for bringing this motion before the House. Members know, but for the sake of Canadians who are watching I should point out that a motion brought to the House will not bind the government in any way to act on it. It is really just a means of trying to get the attention of cabinet and say that this is something we should do. Although it is votable, it is not binding. I am sure the hon. member would like to see it binding, but it just plain is not.

There are many things that happen in politics in the House and outside the House that are not binding, such as promises that are made during election campaigns. During the last campaign, members will recall members of the Liberal Party made a lot of hay out of the fact that they were going to get rid of the hated GST. As a matter of fact, I recall specifically being ridiculed on a campaign platform by my Liberal opponent because I said we could not possibly get rid of the GST without replacing it with another tax. The GST generates $18 billion in revenue. We just cannot say poof and it is gone. We have to deal with reality.

Here we are a couple of years later and the GST is still in place, still being corrected. That brings me to the problem we have in supporting this bill. We have to do more than just cure the symptom; we have to cure the cold.

We are in complete agreement that the GST has led to a burgeoning underground economy. Simply offering a limited amnesty is not of its own accord going to bring people back to the market. Advertising or letting people know that avoiding the GST or working underground is in fact stealing and is not something that should be condoned in our country would be a very worthwhile thing to do, with or without any of the other items in this bill. It would not hurt to use some of these Dr. Feelgood ads that are running across the country right now to say that if you are working in the underground economy you are stealing from your neighbour.

As earlier speakers have pointed out, how would you like to be in the renovation or construction business competing with and losing jobs to somebody who is constantly being paid under the table?

I had some extensive renovations done in my home a year ago. Just try to get them done and pay the GST. It is not an easy chore. There are quite a number of people in the construction and renovation business who will not do any work if it requires receipts. This is not to mention all the service industries that work under the table. We all know it exists.

The problem is that it is like a speed limit on a highway. You are tooling down a highway at 110 kilometres an hour and for no apparent reason the speed limit is 80 kilometres an hour and there is a radar trap there. Well, citizens will go wherever it makes sense. The reaction to the GST was a visceral reaction to the taxation levels in the country. That more than anything else is the reason people are not paying the GST. It is not seen by the ordinary Canadian to be a crime.

Rather than tinkering with this, rather than treating the symptom and not curing the cold, I would ask the hon. member opposite to give thought to joining with other colleagues in the House in a bipartisan approach to see if we cannot do something about the underlying problem in the tax system, which is a disincentive for reinvestment. My hon. colleague for Mississauga South well knows-far better than I because of his experience as a chartered accountant-what a disincentive it is for people in our country to reinvest profits. That is a much bigger problem than the GST problem.

My specific objection to this bill is not the thrust of the bill, which I think is honourable and in the right direction in saying that people have to get out of the underground economy. My objection is not to the limited amnesty, which would give people the opportunity to get out if they have become involved in the underground economy. While we would offer them a carrot, we should also offer a fairly substantial stick.

I do have a problem with the notion of offering a tax credit to people for renovations. We might be able to square that circle and address that problem if for instance we were to allow people to use an RRSP to do a renovation, just as they can for buying new homes, depending on the equity level in the home, but only if they bring in a qualified receipt showing the GST. That would then ensure the public purse does not get hit twice, once for the RRSP and again for the tax credit. What about the people who might do it themselves, or whatever?

I do not think we should be giving tax credits to induce people to obey the law. People should obey the law because it is the right thing to do. The advertising should be there, amnesty as the carrot, and a substantial stick for breaking the law. This is not to induce people to do the right thing because we are going to pay them to do it; they are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and because the underground economy is no longer seen in the community as tolerable.

I would reiterate that the Liberal government promised to get rid of the hated GST. When I go out to buy my next article at the store I am pretty sure I am going to be paying the hated GST, which is two years after the fact. I would be very surprised if in the life of this Parliament the GST is gone.