Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Intervener Funding Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously confused as to the intent and scope of Bill C-96.

For example, clause 6 of the bill does not provide the Minister of Human Resources Development with any new powers. These already existed within the predecessor's departments and are simply consolidated to provide a more efficient response to the needs of Canadians.

Clause 20 allows the minister to enter into agreements. Again this is nothing new, as the minister already has similar authority under existing legislation. As the member should know, this authority is very important to serving the needs of Canadians. For example, under the program for older worker adjustment, the minister signs agreements with provinces to set up the program and with financial institutions to buy annuities on behalf of designated unemployed older workers.

This program has been of particular importance to Quebec where in 1994-95, the federal government spent $35.4 million, representing 66 per cent of total expenditures nation-wide to buy annuities on behalf of 1,255 older Quebec men and women. By the end of 1994-95, 4,260 Quebecers were benefiting from annuities purchased under the authority of POWA.

Of course, the federal government will continue to seek out the co-operation of its partners in establishing flexible programs and efficient arrangements. The government has continuously acted in this spirit since its election in October 1993.

For example, the Canada student loans program provides grants to women and persons with disabilities. Quebec has chosen to opt out and runs its own student loans program. In 1994-95, Quebec received a federal payment of over $92 million to do so.

The new Canada health and social transfer will provide block funding to provinces for post-secondary education, health and social assistance. The CHST will enhance provincial flexibility in allocating federal resources according to each province's priorities.

The strategic initiatives program funds innovative projects based on provincial priorities. We were all pleased when the minister announced on August 29 that he had come to an agreement on this important initiative with his Quebec colleague. As a result, an estimated 29,000 additional Quebecers will be receiving assistance over the next three years under the APPORT and Formation professionelle au secondaire programs.

It is clear that the hon. member is more interested in ideology than ideas. This bill is another step forward in the reform process leading to a more efficient and effective government. I urge him to support Bill C-96.

[The Late Yitzhak Rabin, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a memorial service in Toronto to honour the life of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was an emotional evening. Over 6,000 members of our community joined together to recognize the gifts Mr. Rabin had bestowed upon the people of Israel and upon all of us through his endless pursuit of peace.

Mr. Rabin dedicated his life to his country. As a soldier he fought for Israel's survival. As a prime minister he fought for peace.

Saturday, November 3, perhaps marked the pinnacle ofMr. Rabin's quest when he spoke and sung of peace in front of more than 100,000 people in Tel Aviv. How tragic for this to be the end. How tragic for him not to be able to see the results of his life's work. How tragic for the murderer to have been in the crowd, to have heard Rabin's words of peace and not to have heeded them.

As members of the global community we must all join together to ensure that Mr. Rabin's dream of lasting peace will never die.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed today's debate because it clearly illustrates the different philosophies of the different parties. We on this side believe the role of government is to act as facilitator, to aid small businesses, to give them the types of tools required not only in the financial sector but also in the development of human resources.

The hon. member who has just spoken cited some of the areas in which she would like to see an improvement. She was referring to the concept of developing an apprenticeship system which might give some tax breaks to small business and providing the sorts of incentives that would result in the development of the type of workforce that may be more in tune with the economic reality of today's marketplace.

I would like to tell the hon. member that the federal government has initiated a number of programs in co-operation with the private sector which speak to the issues raised by the hon. member.

I had the pleasure on August 28 to be in the province of Quebec with the president of Chrysler Canada, the CARS Council and a local school board to engage in the type of partnership that will lead to approximately 1,000 jobs for young people. This is done through the youth internship program in co-operation with the National Sectoral Council.

I would like to speak about these initiatives because they address the human resources planning that a modern, developed nation should be addressing. In fact, surprisingly, the minister of education from the Parti Quebecois was present and co-operated with the federal government in kicking off this initiative.

What does this really mean? It means that we on this side of the House have realized we cannot have a program for every challenge we face. The answers are really found at the community level, at the industry level. Our role as a government is to bring about the meetings of the minds around the table, so that we can institute programs which deal with the challenges of the ever changing nature of the workforce.

At that announcement, Chrysler committed itself to provide an internship program for 200 young people. The sectoral council initiative committed itself to a cumulative number of 1,000. That means these young people will go through an internship program and will have a job waiting for them at the end of their one year or nine months worth of training.

This federal government initiative has been extremely successful. Under our red book commitment we originally stated that 24,000 young people would participate in this program. To date, 27,000 young people are participating. They are participating in programs I am certain will bring about positive changes in their lives.

Equally important is that for the very first time all sectors of our society, the educational institutions, industry, labour and management, together are addressing standards for the industry. They are addressing issues and concerns that have blocked the progress of a particular industry.

Whom are we linking these industries with? We are linking them with Canadians who are willing to learn a profession or trade so that they will have the type of skills required in the ever changing Canadian economy.

Why are we excited about these prospects? We are excited because we see our role as a facilitator to be a very important one in setting the parameters of economic development within our country. That is one initiative which has worked very well. We have linked our initiative not just to any industry, but we have linked our initiative to industries that provide jobs with a future.

For example in the automotive industry, gone are the days when there were mechanics. Those are jobs of the past. My father was in the trucking industry for a number of years. He would have the local mechanic look at his truck and the mechanic would put his ear near the engine to hear the noises. That is gone. Computer chips are now a very important part of the engine. The job of a mechanic is obsolete. What do we do? We have to retrain people to become auto technicians, to give them the tools to understand how the new engines work.

I give that example because I think it is a fundamental one. It clearly illustrates how quickly our country and our economy is changing. In the same way we cannot fix a 1995 car with a 1965 car repair manual, we certainly cannot fix the challenges we face in 1995, whether it is labour market strategy or small business initiatives, with 1965 programs.

This is very important to this government. It is for this reason that we have taken up the challenge to modernize Canada's social security system. This is the reason we are reviewing all our training programs. This is the reason we are promoting innovative programs and effective and strategic partnerships that speak to a modern economy.

How does this translate to the local reality where I live in my riding? What does this all mean to the residents of Aurora, Woodbridge, Maple, Richmond Hill, Oak Ridges, King and Nobleton? What does it mean to the over 260,000 people I represent in the House of Commons? How do I as a member bring about this vision of how we modernize and become more innovative in real terms? How do I make the translation from this beautiful Chamber of the House of Commons on to where the people live, play and work?

Yesterday was our anniversary as elected officials here. I have spent the past couple of years building the partnerships required to have real change occur at the community level. Last year I began planning and setting priorities for my area. I developed the York North technology strategy. Today I take this opportunity to outline some of its major principles.

Along with the residents of York North, I have realized quite clearly that in order to succeed in the new economy we cannot fear technology. We cannot fear technology infusion in the workplace. We cannot fear that in certain cases technology may reduce employment opportunities in old economy industries.

Instead of fear, the response I received from the residents of York North was one of excitement. Change in a society brings about two emotional responses: one either gets anxious about change or one gets excited. The people of York North decided that there was no great happiness in being anxious about change and technology and that we should not only absorb the technological revolution which is occurring globally but we should also find ways in which we could lead the way in our area.

I called a meeting of local stakeholders in my community, mayors, business representatives, members of labour unions. I called local school boards and people from the Career Foundation, the foundation which brings all these people together. I said that perhaps we should begin to experiment to find new ways of dealing with the technological changes that were occurring.

On September 11, 1995 we announced a major local economic development strategy, the York region strategic alliance. For now, it is a pilot project. What does it do? It gives the businesses in my area an opportunity to place their business in a database which can be accessed worldwide. We are not happy with just being able to access it within Canada. We understand the potential for export. We also are fully committed to building worldwide strategic alliances in order for business in my community to prosper. This is what some of the partners have said about the initiative.

Steve Quinlan, president of Seneca College, said that Seneca College, York region, the federal government and other partners have co-funded and developed a strategic alliance partnership to strengthen opportunities for jobs and growth. This initial research is a valuable resource, using information systems technology to rapidly assess regional needs in response to a changing global economy. This initiative is a pilot model to show how business, government and education can in fact work together.

Eldred King, chair of the Regional Municipality of York, stated that the strategic alliance initiative is an important component of the region's visions and plans for the 21st century. The region must provide leadership if change is to occur. He said that their plans strike a balance between economic growth, healthy communities and sustainable development.

Mayor Lorna Jackson from the city of Vaughan said that she was very excited that Vaughan was chosen as the test site. Not only is it one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, it is a bastion for industry. She stated: "I have no doubt that we will serve our country proud".

The reason I bring these names to the floor of the House of Commons is to clearly illustrate to Canadians that partnerships at the local level can work. Government, business and labour can come together to create the type of environment in which jobs flourish. This partnership is not just found in the riding of York North, it is found in every single community in Canada.

I say to hon. members that they should return to their ridings and engage local stakeholders to take charge of the future of the community. They should excite people about the new economy. There are great opportunities.

If there is one thing about the information highway, if there is one thing about the new economy, it is that they have redefined time and space. They have made geography less important. Now we are linked by satellite. The information highway will link us to the world. This is something we should be getting excited about.

We need to give people the tools. That is why I am happy with the commitment of the federal government to establish the Canadian Business Development Bank, which is providing people with the important capital to start their businesses.

That is why I am happy that on October 2 of this year I was able to establish the Vaughan Technology Enterprise Centre where 60 young people will be taught entrepreneurial studies. They will be linked with small business people in the community in a mentorship program. They will acquire the skills which are so important in creating jobs.

That is why I am so happy that the federal government has a program called self-employment assistance which has enabled 34,000 unemployed Canadians to create their own businesses. Better still, not only have they created businesses, they have created over 68,000 jobs.

That is the type of transition we want. We want people to get off the unemployment rolls of the country and onto the payrolls of this nation. It is happening in every single community.

I have a very clear message that we on this side of the House understand the important role small business plays. We want to clearly reach out in as many ways as possible to bring about positive change, jobs and healthy communities throughout this land.

[Employment Equity Act, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadian workers experience barriers preventing them from participating as fully as possible in the labour market. For example, many women continue to be ghettoized in low paying and part time work. In spite of that fact, in 1990 women obtained 55 per cent of university bachelor degrees.

Unjust hiring criteria, attitudinal barriers and uneven training and promotion practices still prevent women, as well as persons with disabilities, aboriginal people and members of visible minorities, from achieving equality in the workplace.

In light of these facts there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that employment equity is not only a good thing, it is a necessary thing. Good business practice would require that companies do something to improve access to world markets. Members of ethnocultural communities, with insider cultural linguistic knowledge as well as contacts with their country of origin, can play a key role in penetrating new markets. They are a rich resource in the workplace environment.

It is puzzling to me how the Reform Party can fail to see the desirability of the bill now before the House. My colleagues on the opposite side of the Chamber seem frozen in time. I have news for them, the past cannot be resuscitated. The 1950s are over.

We live in a radically restructured working world, different from anything that has gone before. Rapidly changing technologies and failing trade barriers are globalizing the economy, challenging us to become more competitive.

Canada's export driven economy is heavily dependent on foreign sales. Expansion into emerging markets, most notably in Latin America and Asia, will change even further our economic reality.

This greater interdependence poses new challenges. It means that our business organizations must be able to understand the culture and outlook of our new consumers.

Another fact of Canadian life is Canada's evolution as a technology based society. Knowledge is key to Canada's future prosperity and our human resources are our greatest asset.

Consequently, policies that develop our human capital are pivotal to our ability to compete. As everyone can see, employment equity is nothing to be feared or shunned. It is a policy that permits our society to move forward and to take into account the talents and potential of all our citizens.

It is no surprise that Canadian companies with experience in employment equity are often the strongest supporters of this legislation. They have seen firsthand how employment equity programs bring them numerous benefits. By having a fair and efficient human resources development strategy and a very efficient environment, employers have a chance to access a broader set of skills, a base of skills that makes their companies more productive. By improving the workplace they stabilize their workforce, boost employer's morale and increase productivity. They also enhance their corporate image in the community at large.

Employers cannot afford to exclude a wide segment of qualified individuals if they want to survive and succeed in the global economy. Private sector companies, and among them most progressive business leaders, have long appreciated the added value of employment equity.

Our challenge in the workplace is to accommodate the different needs of our diverse workforce and to demonstrate flexibility. These initiatives are in no way a threat to other Canadians.

Bill C-64 is not about hurting the chances of white males to earn a living and pursue a career. It is about creating real equality of opportunity in the federal government, in the federally regulated private sector and among federal contractors. It recognizes that making overt discrimination illegal and unacceptable in society was a critical step to that goal.

The next step is for employers and society to find and break down the hidden barriers that discourage people from applying for jobs or that keep them in certain occupational ghettos.

Bill C-64 ensures that employers look at their workforce and their employment practices thoroughly in order to identify and remove barriers. They then set targets for hiring and promotion that create greater access for qualified people. With the proper tools and strategy they will achieve these results.

Far from taking anything away from anyone, employment equity offers something of value to everyone. It permits employers to build greater trust and dialogue with all their employees and unions moving forward from awareness to action.

The Reform minority report shows little appreciation of this potential for creating a more level playing field for all Canadians. Instead, it offers a narrow view of discrimination and exotic examples of university admission policies, most of which are not even Canadian.

The existence of systemic discrimination does not seem to trouble the Reform Party. It boldly proclaims that Canadian employers do not discriminate on a systemic basis. Contrary to what the Reform Party members say with their usual confidence, systemic discrimination unfortunately is still very much part of our daily life. It continues to exist because organizations hold on to workplace practices that place barriers in front of certain people.

Many companies and organizations inspired by the act have chosen to eliminate barriers. The Royal Bank worked with aboriginal Canadians to improve the interviewing process. In a report issued by the Royal Bank it shared some of its philosophy with regard to its activities: "With a labour shortage predicted in the future and a more diverse population, it is very important to get off the mark quickly, before the labour crunch hits. Serving a diverse group of clients well means having a representative workforce".

The Royal Bank's example and that of other organizations is precisely the approach taken by the federal government with Bill C-64. Far from dividing people, employment equity helps us to forge a fairer future and build a better country. It is not about guilt and punishment, nor is it about tearing down merit based hiring systems so as to hire the unqualified. The bill actually forbids quotas. It states specifically that employers do not have to hire unqualified workers. The merit principle is only enhanced by this legislation.

When we eliminate irrelevant criteria for hiring, does that not strengthen the merit principle even further? When we ensure that more people have more chances to apply for a job or get suitable training, does that not strengthen the merit principle even further?

Bill C-64 makes merit work. It opens doors to opportunity that have been closed for far too long. The fact that designated groups are under-represented and concentrated in lower paying jobs is a reality the Reform Party just does not understand. These groups have historically had higher unemployment rates and lower average salaries. They have also tended to be concentrated in a few occupational groups.

If Canadians were to accept the Reform Party's stand on this issue, they would also have to accept the fact that somehow women, aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities and disabled Canadians choose lower salaries and higher unemployment rates. We know and Canadians know that aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities and designated groups want good jobs and good salaries like the rest of Canadians. The Reform Party wants us to believe that those individuals love to be ghettoized in low paying jobs, that they love high unemployment. That is not the fact.

The reality is quite simple. We can look at our society in a very simple way or we can try to break down the barriers that have left some people unfortunately in situations Reform Party members certainly would not want to be in themselves. That shows the hypocrisy of the Reform Party.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I often hear hon. members of the Reform Party referring to the Ontario Employment Equity Act. Somehow they try to tell Canadians that we are speaking about the same act.

I would like to take the opportunity to clear up some of the misconceptions that have been stated by the Reform Party. I want to put on the record that our legislation specifically prohibits the imposition of quotas. Another fundamental difference is that Bill C-64 takes a unique human resource planning approach. Ontario's legislation is modelled more on a human rights approach with third party complaints. I would point out that under the Ontario system any person can lay a complaint, including interest groups, job applicants, employees, unions, public or private corporations, or any other individual. There is no such provision in our legislation.

With regard to the rules and regulations that govern the two pieces of legislation, Ontario has set out the obligations of employers in considerable detail and there are extensive provisions for detailed regulations. Bill C-64, on the other hand, is much less prescriptive and minimizes regulatory burden by limiting new regulations to just a few essential areas. A criticism of the Ontario act is the very broad regulation making power it confers on people.

There is a substantial difference in just what is covered by the federal and Ontario legislation. The Ontario act has a much broader scope. For example, the threshold for private sector coverage in Ontario is 50 employees while under Bill C-64 it is 100 employees. Keep in mind as well that the Ontario legislation covers about 17,000 employers while our act targets approximately 350 employers, and many are leaders in the business community.

To enforce its legislation Ontario established two new independent government agencies, the Ontario Employment Equity Commission and the Ontario Employment Equity Tribunal. Hon. members know that Bill C-64 will utilize two existing government agencies, namely Human Resources Development Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I trust that I have helped to clarify for the hon. member the key differences that exist between the provincial and federal legislation.

If that is not enough, I would like to remind hon. members of some very interesting survey results. Roughly two thirds of Ontario businesses responding to a poll just after the recent Ontario election reported that they are in fact in favour of reforming or keeping that province's employment equity law as it is. The business position is reform it but do not repeal it. Only 8 per cent said they would cease implementing employment equity initiatives if the law is repealed, with 69 per cent saying it would not have any impact on their company's equity plans.

I appreciate this time to make some comments. I think that in this debate it is important that the Reform Party face the facts and the truth.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I attentively listened to the hon. member's speech. I was somewhat puzzled by some of the conclusions he drew from the bill we are debating.

I should like to ask a question of the hon. member. Does he believe aboriginal Canadians, women and visible minorities choose to work in low paying jobs, choose alienation from the Canadian economic system and choose their lifestyle?

We have lived for decades without employment equity and thanks to employment equity we are now seeing progress. We are seeing, for example, that women's salaries have gone up. Not enough. They are still not equal to men's salaries. The gender gap still exists.

Since the hon. member seems to have all the answers, I will go back to the original question. Does he think that women choose to be ghettoized in certain sectors? Do visible minorities choose low incomes because they like low income jobs? Or, is it because there are systemic barriers in society that do not allow these individuals to achieve their full potential?

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Are you in favour?

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

You are.

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

What is the story with visible minorities?

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Come on.