CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15140
Division on motion deferred 15140
Motion moved and agreed to 15141
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15141
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15145
Division on motion deferred. 15148
Bill C-64. Report stage 15149
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 15149
Motions Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 15149
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15154
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15175
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15177
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15178
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15178
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15179
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 15180
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 15181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15181
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15181
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15181
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15181
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15183
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15184
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15184
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15184
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of report stage 15187
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 15188
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 15194
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15202
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 168; Nays, 36. 15202
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to the
committee.) 15203
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion 15203
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 137; Nays, 67 15203
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 15204
15139
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group
of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the
special session of the Inter-Parliamentary Council on the occasion
of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, held
in New York on August 30 and September 1, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): 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.
(1010 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been signed by
a number of Canadians in my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two
petitions.
The first is on behalf of constituents from Regina-Lumsden
and other parts of Saskatchewan who are unhappy with the fact that
the Senate is unelected and unaccountable, and is nothing but a
home for recipients of Liberal and Tory patronage which cost
Canadians $54 million a year.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to undertake a
constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate. I am happy to
present this petition on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is from a number of constituents from
Regina-Lumsden as well as from citizens in other parts of
Saskatchewan like Fort Qu'Appelle and Saskatoon.
The petitioners are opposed to the approval of the synthetic
bovine growth hormone known as BGH or BST, a drug injected
into cows to increase milk production. They call on Parliament to
take steps to keep BGH out of Canada through legislating a
moratorium or stoppage on BGH use and sale until the year 2000
and examining the outstanding health and economic questions
through independent and transparent review.
15140
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, that was pretty
close to debate.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, having consulted with the Bloc whip and the chief
government whip, I think you will find there is unanimous consent
for me to move:
That Private Members' Business will be dispensed with today, Tuesday, October 3
and that at 5.30 p.m. the time be called 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
member's motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would request that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15140
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the other day I had the opportunity to speak on a Reform
amendment to this bill. I must admit my remarks were somewhat
hurried and I was unable to review certain material before I was
able to make those remarks.
Today, having had ample opportunity to reflect on the excellent
material available in support of the bill put out by the office of the
minister and the department, I want to again praise the minister for
introducing Bill C-93. It is a very good bill. It has been earnestly
sought after by members of the cultural community who appreciate
the very significant donations made to galleries, museums,
archives and libraries by donors who own valuable cultural
treasures.
The department estimates that $60 million a year is donated to
Canadian institutions. These very significant gifts are of possible
tax benefit to the donor who may claim a deduction in respect to the
value of the gift. I note the deduction that can be claimed in each
case is only half the value. It is not the full value. It is substantially
less than that. The part which is eligible as a tax credit therefore is
much more modest than has been suggested in some of the remarks
made by hon. members opposite.
(1015)
Donors, museums, galleries and professional associations have
lobbied for the right to appeal the determination made by the
review board which currently makes determinations of value, and
this bill gives that right. It is only fair, it is only just and I think the
bill deserves the support of all hon. members, particularly when we
look at the substantial value of the gifts made to these institutions.
Without these kinds of gifts many of these institutions would not be
able to acquire the very substantial works of art they now receive.
I submit this is a fair and reasonable way of proceeding and I
urge all hon. members to support the bill in light of the facts and
figures I have been able to bring to the attention of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the division on the motion now before the House
stands deferred until five o'clock today, at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
15141
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to reintroduce my
motion which I understand now has the unanimous consent of the
House. I move:
That Private Members' Business be dispensed with today, Tuesday, October 3,
and that furthermore when the time of 5.30 p.m. comes that it be deemed to be 6.30
p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
the first time I have spoken from the left side of my chair instead of
the right side and perhaps my left leaning ideology may come out a
little stronger in this speech than it has in the last speeches I have
made in the Chamber.
(1020 )
I hope the bill finds a very broad degree of support by members
on all sides of the House. It clearly establishes the framework of a
piece of legislation, a commitment given by the government as
espoused by no less than the Prime Minister to get a focus in
government on the development and management of oceans and
ocean policy.
The bill has been a long time in coming and has been awaited
with much anticipation by many individuals and organizations
dealing with the marine environment. The Canadian Wildlife Fund
and many other organizations have pushed for many years for the
government to come in with a piece of legislation that would
consolidate the administration of all governmental activities
related to oceans as well as ensure the number one prerogative and
prerequisite of this policy be conservation.
If measures taken by governments respecting management of
oceans and oceans policy did not pass the fundamental test of being
environmentally sound, they would not be passed.
The bill affirms the commitment of the government to a new
approach to oceans management. The preamble clearly outlines the
government's commitment to manage the oceans in a sustainable,
environmental and ecologically sound fashion.
The bill consolidates and gives impact and full effect to the laws
of Canada, not just marine laws but environmental laws in our
200-mile limit. It goes through a whole bunch of definitions of the
contiguous zone, the coastal zone, the 200-mile economic zone and
all of those things.
In essence it puts in a single piece of legislation the regulatory
legislative framework for us to act in the best interests of those who
rely on our marine resource for a living. It directs government as to
how it should deal with the marine environment.
Part II of the act tries to consolidate a lot of governmental
activity with respect to the oceans. I have been critical about the
way the government has handled the oceans generally. I have been
critical for fairly good reason.
Over the years governments have come to see the ocean as a
place to exploit a resource called fish. We can see this very clearly
by the difficulties we have on both coasts, more poignantly perhaps
on the east coast with the collapse of the ground fishery and over
100,000 people without employment. Coastal communities are
dying and a way of life unique to that part of Canada is perhaps
facing extinction.
It is all because governments have not been able to deal
comprehensively in policy with that ocean resource. Current
legislation almost ignores that there is an interrelationship between
various policy arms of the government with respect to the health of
the ocean resource.
It also ignores that there is an ecology within the ocean that deals
with living and non-living organisms. In the last number of years
Canada has worked aggressively at the United Nations. It has been
one of the states that has promoted to a great extent and has perhaps
been the lead nation on some of the major conservation efforts with
the United Nations law of the sea.
Canada has talked a lot about the need for some international
regimes to deal with oceans, to deal with those fringe areas,
straddling stocks, highly migratory stocks. However, there are
other issues in the law of the sea convention that Canada had some
difficulty with, deep ocean bed mining, for example.
How do we reconcile ourselves as a state to that? Whose
resource is this to manage? When we get on to the continental shelf
there are laws dealing with our proprietary right and our
management responsibilities in the water column. Perhaps they are
less clear about which level of government has jurisdiction or
whether
15142
the Canadian government has any legal jurisdiction for the sea bed
for minerals or deep ocean mining.
There has been much debate in the last year with the Americans
about sedentary species when dealing with the continental shelf.
Who has management rights of those species? Who has the right of
first exploitation and who has the responsibility to manage? The act
seeks to consolidate in a fairly substantial way all the various
issues, programs and legislation.
(1025)
I am pleased with the direction the bill has taken. I am pleased
that it gives primary responsibility for co-ordination of the
application of these pieces of legislation and regulations to the
minister of fisheries. However, I am from Missouri, I am yet to be
convinced the bill goes as far as it should to ensure a sharp edge to
the sword in the management and policy development dealing with
our marine resources.
I am a bit confused that in the bill we give the minister of
fisheries primary responsibility for co-ordination. I would rather
see a direct line of accountability for the administration of some of
the acts which still fall under the purview of other departments and
other ministers.
I think back to the dispute we had not long ago when two
ministers worked very well together in dealing with the turbot
dispute with the European Union, more particularly and poignantly
with the Spanish fleet decimating a straddling stock. We almost
saw another stock going into the record book as being extinct as a
commercial and viable stock on our east coast.
We had the good fortune at that time to have the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans working
together on a co-ordinated and combined approach to resolve and
put together the Canadian position, making sure the Canadian
position was put to the international community very strongly and
firmly and that it was accepted by the international community. As
a result of that close working relationship, sharing the same goals,
we were able to save a species and defuse a difficult international
situation that had arisen with respect to the turbot allocation on the
east coast.
I am extremely pleased the bill is going to committee. As
chairman of the committee, I want the committee to look at
whether there are some pieces of legislation currently outside the
direct jurisdiction of the minister, although the minister may have
the responsibility for co-ordination, where we possibly can make a
case that those pieces of legislation and programs should be more
properly moved over to the minister of fisheries.
When we talk about downsizing and government and operational
review we must look at what makes sense. The policy as stated in
the preamble of the bill is one I heartily support and I hope it will
be supported by all members of the House.
Part III of the bill talks about the minister of fisheries having
primary responsibility for ocean research. It is an absolute given.
There is more than fish in our oceans. There is more benefit than
exploiting the stocks in our oceans. Ocean science in itself is a
generator of wealth and employment which can be exported on our
east and west coasts and in the labs of central Canada.
I want to make sure that when the bill is passed the minister of
fisheries, as stated in part III, has the tools at his disposal to ensure
there is proper direction and proper resources applied to the whole
area of marine and ocean science.
In my riding of Dartmouth I am lucky to have the Bedford
Institute of Oceanography, a world class centre for oceans research.
In excess of 12,000 people produce good products. There is
partnering by the scientific community employed by the
government and the scientific community in the
Halifax-Dartmouth area. Some of that technology is being
exported around the world.
In that facility the geological survey is doing incredible work.
The work of the labs on the east and west coasts is leading science
around the world. People from educational and academic
institutions and other governments around the world come to see
how we do our research in Canada.
I get concerned, however, that lab is not under the direction of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is under the direction of the
Minister of Natural Resources. It is not the primary objective or job
of that department to ensure that deep ocean science has a
pre-eminent position when you deal with where your resources go
inside a department.
(1030)
At the same time, we have provisions dealing with deep ocean
dumping, which seems to me should more likely be over with the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Currently, although there would
be a requirement in this act to see the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans as the lead, it does not hand that particular responsibility
over to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We have a chance through committee to show two things. One is
that the committee can work. I have an incredibly good committee,
and I am very proud as chairman to say that most of the work we do
is non-partisan. Sometimes we fall prey to the fact that we are
practitioners of the political profession and sometimes we become
partisan.
As a chair of a committee I want to let everybody in this place
know that I believe there is a proper role for a committee to play
with respect to examining legislation. I am hoping that when this
bill passes second reading and gets to the committee we in the
committee will do a fairly exhaustive review of this bill and will be
15143
able to come back with a bill that is true to the principles and if
necessary strengthens the hand of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we have
talked in the House about Bill C-98 and the problems we have with
it. The problem is that along with the consolidation of government
regulations this bill also opens the door for the government to
increase what it euphemistically calls access fees, but which we all
know is a tax on fishermen. We know that the plans are to raise
taxes 400 per cent on a segment of our society that can least afford
it.
The minister had a choice. The minister knew his budget was
going to be cut and he had a choice. He could cut spending, he
could deal with the bloated bureaucracy here in Ottawa and in other
parts of Canada where they have these ivory towers, or he could
raise access fees or taxes on fishermen. He chose to go after the
fishermen. As I said earlier, these are people in our country who
can least afford to pay a massive increase at this point in time.
Let us talk about access for a minute. I think that is an interesting
subject, given that this government is supporting an aboriginal
fishing strategy on both coasts that allows special access to a
resource based on race. The aboriginal fishing strategy, this
government policy, sets people apart. It treats them differently,
gives them different rules to live by, and it creates a gulf between
people. It creates a mentality of us versus them. It creates divisions
in our society that we do not need and we have not seen before, but
which are growing as a result of government policy such as this.
Not only does this set people apart by race, not only does it give
different treatment to Canadians on the basis of their racial origin,
it is profoundly anti-democratic at its very roots. The cornerstone
of democracy is that all people within a democracy can expect
equal treatment before the eyes of the law. They can expect to be
treated the same as all other citizens in the democracy, in the
country. This is no longer the case in Canada. We now treat people
differently.
I suggest that this is playing to a deeply rooted sense of
tribalism. I suggest that both of these cannot co-exist within a
democracy, this idea of tribalism where you have people who
suggest they have special rights and should be treated differently,
on whatever basis, whether it is racial origin or whether it is sexual
preference, it does not matter, you name it. It is the cornerstone of
democracy that we do not treat people differently, that everybody
gets the same treatment in the eyes of the law. That is not
happening here.
(1035 )
The fishermen on the west coast and east coast who are being
asked to pay a massive increase for access to the resource look
across the way and see their neighbours and fellow Canadians
getting access to the same resource on a completely different basis.
It is fundamentally unacceptable, I would suggest, in a democracy
that we proceed with that kind of policy.
We will hear members opposite say the courts made us do it. I
suggest very strongly that there is no basis in law, no basis in our
Constitution. There is not one legal case that has said that the
aboriginal people of Canada should have special access to any
resources on a commercial basis. It is completely unsupported. But
these members opposite, other members before them, and other
fisheries ministers have said that the Sparrow decision is what
creates this aboriginal fishing strategy. It is faulty and not
supported. I would suggest that by government following this
policy it is just creating divisions in our society that we do not
need.
I would ask how the minister and this government can, under
Bill C-98, contemplate and suggest that they are going to raise
access fees to ordinary Canadian fishermen who remain in the
commercial sector by some 400 per cent while at the same time
they support and maintain an aboriginal fishing strategy that
provides access to the resource on a completely different basis.
I suggest that what the government is doing here is not supported
in the industry. It certainly is not supported from the point of view
of the Atlantic Canadian fishermen I have had the opportunity to
meet in recent weeks. I believe there are many members on the
opposite benches who are going to have a difficult time going back
to their constituents to explain why they are supporting this bill in
its present form, because their constituents do not support it. Their
constituents are very unhappy with what the government is
proposing.
In closing, I would like to say that the Reform Party is opposed
to Bill C-98. We are opposed because we see the minister
increasing taxes on fishermen rather than cutting his own budget
and his own spending. We know there are significant cuts that can
be made within DFO at the top, which would probably increase the
efficiency of the organization by 400 per cent. This would get the
whole fishery on a more economically sustainable basis. It is
unthinkable that we continue to pump the kind of money into DFO
that we do based on the value of the fishery.
I know the members opposite, particularly the member for
Dartmouth and the member for South West Nova, are going to have
difficulties in their ridings when they go back and try to explain to
their constituents and the fishermen who live in their communities
why they are supporting this legislation.
I am here today on behalf of the Reform Party to say we are not
supporting this legislation. We will not support these kinds of
massive tax increases wherever we find them. This bill is
fundamentally flawed because of this very important move by the
government to increase those fees.
15144
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting
the oceans of Canada. I welcome the opportunity to chat for a few
minutes about why I support the bill before us.
I think it is clear to everyone at this point that there is a great
need to move away from what the National Advisory Board on
Science and Technology called the haphazard, ad hoc, and short
term measures currently employed in the management of our ocean
resources. The patchwork quilt strategy is ineffective and
inefficient. The national advisory board called for Canada to
develop a proactive oceans policy that allows for us to plan for the
future instead of just responding to crises as they arise.
(1040)
Our ocean resources are far too important in this country. We
need a management process that works better and serves the
interests of all of us in the long term. We cannot afford to continue
to make decisions on the management of our fisheries or the
management of our other marine resources in isolation from those
having to do with shipping or those having to do with
environmental protection, and vice versa. Decisions on one have an
impact on all others.
We need to bring all these elements together under one roof. This
legislation will accomplish that by asserting our national
jurisdiction over a 12-mile contiguous zone in which all our
national laws regarding fiscal, immigration, customs and
environmental matters will apply, while at the same time creating
an exclusive economic zone to assert our right to protect and
manage all our resources out to a 200-mile limit, including all fish
and also including all other resources.
This bill will also extend our authority out over the continental
shelf. Bill C-29, passed by the House last year, established our right
to protect and manage the so-called straddling stocks of fish that
move in and out of the current 200-mile limit. This legislation will
reinforce that measure by exerting our authority over the
continental shelf itself and the resources found on the shelf.
Canada has always been a world leader in matters to do with the
wise management of our ocean resources. We were one of the
primary movers urging the UN to focus on the importance of this
issue. Successive governments have made the case to our
international partners that ocean states can and should have the
right to control and protect their coastal waters. We have 250,000
kilometres of coastline, more than anyone else in the world. As
such, it has always been in our national interest to seek recognition
of our rights in the waters immediately off our shores.
The second thing this legislation does is to put overall
responsibility for the creation of oceans management strategy in
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We can proceed in a more
organized and cost efficient manner to deliver oceans programs in a
more coherent manner. The goal is sustainable development of
these vast stretches of our waters. We want to exploit the oceans for
ourselves, but we also want to make sure that in doing so we do not
damage them for future generations of Canadians or for current and
future generations of people in other countries either.
Eight years ago the concept of sustainable development was first
introduced in a report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development chaired by the current Prime Minister of Norway,
Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland. The principles of the Brundtland
report are supported in theory at least by almost every nation in the
world.
The previous government agreed with the principles in the
Brundtland report and in fact made a commitment to bring in a
Canada oceans act. However, no such legislation was ever
introduced by that government. I congratulate this government for
doing so.
Under the terms of this legislation we have before us, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be responsible for the
development and enforcement of a new oceans management
strategy. It is going to be done with a different approach from that
used in the past. It is the government's stated intention to work in
partnership with oceans industries and the people in them, the
various resource extraction industries and the people involved
there, with environmental groups and indeed with anyone who has
an interest to come up with the best plan possible.
An example given of this kind of partnership is the Fisheries
Resource Conservation Council which brings together industry,
educators and governments to advise on conservation in the
Atlantic. The council has played an instrumental role in helping the
government move to the fishery of the future. The government
wants to expand this kind of partnership because it believes that
these kinds of partnership approaches will bring the best results.
That includes using the best scientific information from as many
sources as possible.
It is not going to be a matter of the federal government
determining everything itself. It is going to work with other levels
of government, the private sector, educators, scientists,
environmental groups and all interested parties to make sure that
Canada remains on the cutting edge of research and knowledge in
this critical area and more important, that Canada uses that
knowledge to make the right decisions about how best to manage
our ocean resources.
Hon. colleagues will also know that the government has already
moved to integrate the coast guard into the department of fisheries.
I think this move makes a lot of sense. Bringing together these two
fleets of ships and aircraft will save the government money. This is
always good news for taxpayers. It is very welcome news for my
constituents in the riding of Erie. More than that, it also gives them
the opportunity to use all their vessels and aircraft for both
15145
purposes, that is fisheries and resource management as well as the
traditional coast guard duties of search and rescue, ice breaking
service, marine weather warnings, patrolling our coastal waters and
so on.
(1045)
In addition, the regional offices of both will be consolidated into
an enlarged and improved service which means further savings and
a much better co-ordination of all activities that have to do with our
ocean waters.
Provision is also made in the act to allow the minister of
fisheries to carry out scientific research in support of the ocean
management strategy. It gives the minister the legal right to
produce charts, reports and scientific data and to provide that
information to those groups, organizations and individuals who
have an interest in these issues. Also included is a new authority to
provide guidelines under which foreign vessels can conduct
scientific research in Canadian waters.
For the first time the act will give government, following
discussions and advice from scientists and other interested parties,
a new authority to create protected marine areas, to safeguard
ocean biodiversity and to safeguard endangered species.
We all know that our oceans, particularly in our coastal
communities, face a great deal of environmental stress as well as
the depletion of the ocean resources through the destruction of
habitats essential to the survival and growth of certain species. We
need to protect these areas from further destruction. I welcome the
inclusion of this provision in the act and encourage the minister to
use it when scientific evidence demonstrates that it is necessary.
The point has been made by others that passing the legislation by
itself does not guarantee that our oceans will be safe from all
environmental damage or resource depletion for all time. If it were
that simple, I am sure we would have passed a law against the
common cold many years ago.
The bill puts a framework in place that will help us reach those
goals. It also makes clear that we have to promote our own strategy
with all the countries in the world that share oceans with us. In
other words we have to make it clear that each of us is responsible
for protecting them.
I urge the government and the minister to continue to make
Canada's voice heard on issues such as ocean dumping,
conservation of straddling stocks, the proper management of our
coastal zones, circumpolar management and all other issues that
have an impact on the oceans of the world.
The legislation gives us as a nation the opportunity to lead by
example, to demonstrate to the world that Canadians care deeply
about their ocean resources, that we want to preserve and protect
them, and that we are willing to put our money where our mouth is
by taking long term action to do so. The oceans act signals a
renewal of Canada's leadership in ocean management. I am proud
of this initiative asserting Canada's role as a world leader.
Before I conclude I should like to address one point raised by the
previous Reform speaker on cost recovery. The oceans act
authorizes the minister to fix fees, to recover the cost of services
and activities provided for under the act, for example ice breaking,
traffic management and hydrographic charts. Access fees for
commercial fishermen are established under section 8 of the
fisheries act, not under the oceans act. The two pieces of legislation
are entirely distinct.
I hope every member of the House will consider the legislation
as a very positive step in the right direction and give it their
support. I certainly do.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-98, the oceans act,
an act to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
I will mention what I agree with and what I disagree with. I will
give some constructive suggestions to make our oceans better, to
improve our resource management and to ensure we have safe,
clean oceans with viable populations of flora and fauna within
those oceans for now and forever more.
Unfortunately we will create another level of bureaucracy with
this act. There are aspects of it that actually improve, streamline
and make the system more efficient, for example with the
amalgamation of the coast guard. We completely agree with that.
However we have created in the oceans management strategy a
whole new level of bureaucracy to monitor people monitoring
other people when in effect we should just be acting.
(1050 )
Unfortunately we continually study, report and analyse aspects
not only within this ministry but within many others when the
actual facts are already there, waiting to be dealt with. Sadly with
this bill we see the same situation. Historically we can see the
consequences of continuing to act, continuing to report and
continuing to study.
We have seen the decimation of our oceans and the fish
populations within them. The disaster on the east coast has been a
profound tragedy for all people living in the maritimes. On the west
coast unfortunately the fish stocks are facing an impending
disaster. For years the west coast fisheries of many species have
been decimated. The reason is not El Niño, not mackerel, not warm
water, although they can have a contributing effect. The primary
reason for the decimation of fish stocks on the west coast is
poaching, poaching and poaching. That is the cold, hard reality of
15146
what has happened on the west coast. It also happened on the east
coast before.
Unfortunately the ministry has been unwilling and unable to deal
with it. It is not because DFO officers did not want to enforce the
law but because middle management bureaucracy meddled in the
ability of the DFO officers to enforce the laws which protect the
environment and species for generations to come. These
individuals are hiding behind their ethnic origins and using the
aboriginal fishing strategy to poach and pillage our fish stock.
Those are the facts.
The colour or race of persons do not matter. If they are poachers,
they are poachers and they should be dealt with in the same way as
other people. This ministry has been unwilling and unable to do
that. We see aboriginal people poaching up and down the Fraser
River. DFO officers are unwilling to enforce the law because they
are afraid of being shot. On Vancouver Island Vietnamese people
have been decimating the shellfish stocks in full view of other
people and the DFO officers have been unable to deal with it. They
have been told by the bureaucratic masters above them that they
should leave well enough alone.
There are too many nets in the water. Seiners are going out into
the straits of Juan de Fuca and are vacuuming the oceans. The DFO
must take a leadership role to decrease the number of nets.
The aboriginal fishing strategy is a disaster. Furthermore it is
illegal. Court cases in the B.C. Supreme Court have determined
that it is illegal. The Sparrow case my hon. friend mentioned
proved there was no legal jurisdiction for the AFS.
We should have one commercial fishing strategy for all people.
It does not serve the law-abiding aboriginal people who care about
and fish the resource. Nor does it serve anybody else to allow
people within their community to hide behind the AFS and poach
fish. The ministry has put people who are some of the biggest
poachers in British Columbia in charge of the aboriginal fishing
strategy. The aboriginal people know that and they are quite angry
at the DFO for doing it.
As I said before, there is widespread poaching of shellfish.
Widespread poaching of abalone was stopped in 1989, but
everyone who lives on Vancouver Island knows that abalone is
being poached.
Companies continue to dump their garbage into the oceans on
the west coast and on the east coast. The ministry has been unable
and unwilling to deal with it. It should be working closely with the
Ministry of the Environment to develop a system to identify the
people who are polluting our oceans, to enforce the law and to
penalize them. Furthermore, so that it does not cost taxpayers
money, the government should levy the costs for cleaning up the
dumping and the pollution on the shoulders of the groups or
companies that are doing it. It should not cost the taxpayer any
money whatsoever to do that. The full cost and beyond should be
borne by the polluters themselves.
(1055)
I also encourage the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans to work
closely with the Ministry of the Environment and various
universities across the country that are doing very interesting
research in the oceans. They are also developing systems with
strong commercial properties that can be sold internationally.
We as a country can be a leader in areas such as aquaculture,
resource management, fisheries and oceans management. All we
need to do is have the courage to identify these sectors, promote
them and capitalize on them for our economy and our country. We
have been far too lame and non-aggressive in this area.
I suggest that we do the following. We should give DFO officers
more autonomy and stop letting them be hamstrung by middle
management. I strongly encourage the minister to look at what is
happening in middle management. Some of them are telling him
what he wants to hear, not what is actually occurring.
When the minister went to the west coast he did a very good
thing by sitting down with the DFO officers and speaking with
them in a forthcoming fashion. I think he found that productive. I
know they did. I strongly encourage him to continue the practice.
The sad byproduct of that meeting unfortunately is that some of
the DFO officers have been penalized for being forthcoming and as
a result have been removed from their positions at great cost to the
ministry and at great cost to the fisheries. This is completely unfair.
We must make enforcement a priority. We must allow DFO
officers to continue to do their job. We must allow them to enforce
the law as it is written and arrest and penalize anybody who
poaches regardless of whom they happen to be.
I put forth to the minister about a month and a half ago a new
idea by which we can improve our fish stocks and generate funds
for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It involved using
salmon hatcheries.
A recent study indicated that salmon hatcheries, many of which
are inefficient, do not need to exist. I gave the minister a way for
the department to pay for the hatcheries and to earn revenues from
them. They would become self-sustaining and would not be a
lodestone around the taxpayer's neck.
I hope he pays careful attention to it. A model of it will be on the
Sooke River in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. It is a well
thought out plan and will make the hatchery self-sustaining in the
future.
15147
The hon. minister should look at new ways to manage our
oceans and new ways to increase our jurisdiction beyond the
200-mile zone. The reality is that we cannot even manage our
oceans in the 2-mile zone, let alone the 200-mile zone. We have
to show more courage in this way. I am hoping with the
amalgamation of the coast guard we can use the coast guard more
effectively to arrest individuals who are poaching.
I warn once again that a lot of people are coming over from the
United States of America to poach in B.C. waters because their
waters are completely closed to fishing. The DFO has been
completely unable to do anything about that.
The officers should also be given the ability to work overtime
and the ability to do night patrols and weekend patrols when a lot of
poaching occurs.
There are ways in which to generate money from something like
this, so it will not cost the ministry more money. I strongly
encourage the minister to look at these matters. My colleagues and
I would be more than happy to help him in the endeavour to have
one fishery for generations to come.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-98
respecting the oceans act. It implements many of the key
recommendations in last year's report called ``Opportunities from
our Oceans'' by the committee on oceans and coasts of the National
Advisory Board on Science and Technology.
As government members opposite have already noted, this piece
of legislation does three things to implement a strategy to better
manage the environment and resources of Canada's oceans. First,
the act establishes Canadian sovereignty over the ocean areas and
resources of a 24-nautical mile contiguous zone and a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, in accordance with the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Canada signed in 1982
but never ratified. Second, the act develops and implements a
national oceans strategy based on the sustainable development and
integrated management of oceans and coastal activities and
resources; this would include establishing protected marine areas.
Finally, the act provides for the powers, duties, functions, and
responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries to manage Canada's
oceans.
(1100)
This is an important bill which could move us forward toward
managing both our natural resources and our fishery in a manner
that is more sustainable for future generations. The idea of an
oceans act is certainly overdue. I am supportive of the bill in
general and pleased that Canada will finally implement one of the
key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
There are areas where the act could be improved. I wish to focus
my remarks today on some of those improvements and on the fact
that other legislation the government has on the Order Paper may
limit the effectiveness of Bill C-98.
Clause 35 of the bill allows for the minister to establish
protected marine areas. However, the bill states that these areas are
only for the conservation and protection of fishery resources and
their habitat. These protected areas should not be limited just to the
fishery. The act should also be broader so that the protected marine
areas protect other endangered species and different habitats and
ecosystems, not just the fishery. This would recognize the
importance of biodiversity in the complex ocean environment.
There should also be no take zones within these areas.
The environment minister's proposed endangered species
legislation will only protect 4 per cent of Canada's total land base.
A broadening of the protected marine areas therefore would signal
that even if the government does not intend to protect endangered
species in most of the country, at least it will protect them in our
oceans.
This shows that when we look at what the government is doing to
protect the environment, it is important not to look at this
legislation in isolation from other government statements and
initiatives on the environment.
Last week I listened to government members opposite talk about
how wonderful things in this bill would lead us toward sustainable
development and how the bill's regulation would extend our
jurisdiction to manage and protect ocean resources and our
environment. They seem to be blissfully unaware that just last
week the Minister of International Trade, a minister in their own
government, said that Canada will have to cede its sovereignty and
environmental standards to achieve freer world trade and that the
environment will increasingly be subject to harmonization under
international trade agreements. So which is it? Will Bill C-98 be
used to protect and sustain our oceans, or will the environment of
our oceans be sacrificed on the altar of free trade?
As they talked about sustainable development and
environmental regulations, the Liberal members also seemed to be
unaware that their government has introduced two pieces of
legislation, Bill C-62 and Bill C-83. Those bills could effectively
gut the regulations in this bill and therefore prevent us from
knowing if the government's oceans management strategy will ever
lead us to sustainability.
Just to remind members opposite, Bill C-62 is the regulatory
efficiency act, and it does two things. It allows the government to
sign compliance agreements with business, waiving the terms of
15148
compliance with designated regulations. It also allows designated
regulations to be administered by any government, Canadian or
foreign, or by any other person.
The proposed oceans act states that existing Canadian laws will
apply to the exclusive economic zone. This would include the two
most important federal environmental protection laws on the
books, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Since these laws are
effected mainly through their regulations, how can Canada exercise
environmental jurisdiction over its oceans if Bill C-62 effectively
guts the regulations of CEAA and CEPA and gives the power of
environmental regulation to private corporations or indeed foreign
governments?
There are also parts of Bill C-98 that simply will not work
without the regulations. I refer specifically to clause 16, which
establishes the fishing zones of Canada; to clause 25, which
establishes the outer limit of the exclusive economic zones and
makes regulations concerning a marine structure and the
application of federal and provincial laws; and to clause 35, which
establishes protected marine areas.
(1105)
It is technically possible that compliance agreements under Bill
C-62 would replace some of these regulations. In short, Bill C-62
allows the possibility that the federal power in Bill C-98 could be
administered by other authorities, including other provincial and
national governments.
As my final point I would like to mention that Bill C-83, which
establishes a commissioner of the environment and sustainability
within the Office of the Auditor General, could also limit how
effective Bill C-98 will be.
I spoke at length about this bill two weeks ago and how the
environment committee recommended that the environmental
auditor be given the mandate to evaluate whether government
policy was leading us toward sustainability. Government members
opposite did not lift a finger to defend the committee's report. You
may remember that the government completely ignored the
important recommendations of the committee's report; 11 out of 17
of those recommendations were completely ignored.
Now clause 30 in Bill C-98 bases the national oceans
management strategy on two principles, sustainable development
and the integrated management activities in Canada's sovereign
waters. How are we going to know if the management strategy
developed under Bill C-98 is sustainable, effective, or even
desirable if the new environmental commissioner cannot look at
policy established by the government?
The powers of the minister under the oceans management
strategy in clauses 32, 33, and part III of this bill illustrate the clear
need for an independent environmental auditor who can act as a
watchdog and examine whether policies and actions are meeting
environmentally sustainable goals.
In conclusion, although I welcome the intent and objectives
contained in Bill C-98, its passage is not enough to protect the
resources and marine environment off our coasts. If the
government were really serious about protecting our natural
environment, about ensuring sustainable development strategies,
about preserving and enhancing environmental protection
regulations, about pollution prevention, and about protecting
biodiversity and endangered species, it would do a number of
things in addition to passing Bill C-98.
The government would amend Bill C-83 so that the
environmental commissioner can evaluate policy. It would
immediately withdraw Bill C-62 from the Order Paper so that
environmental legislation already on the books in this country is
not gutted. It would bring in real effective endangered species
legislation protecting habitats and it would implement the excellent
recommendation in the environment committee's latest report, a
review of CEPA entitled: ``It's About Our Health! Towards
Pollution Prevention''. May this latest report of the committee fare
better in the hands of the government than the last one.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the question now before
the House stands deferred until 5 p.m., this day, at which time the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
15149
(1110)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-64, an act
respecting employment equity, as reported by the Standing
Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons
with amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are 17 motions in
amendment in the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill
C-64, an act respecting employment equity.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2 and 12 are the same as the amendments
presented and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to
Standing Order 76(5), they have not been selected.
Motion No. 3 cannot be considered today pursuant to Standing
Order 76(2).
Motions Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 will be grouped for
debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to all the others.
[Translation]
Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 7 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 11 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 will be grouped for debate and voted on
as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the
necessity for the question being put on Motion No. 14. However, a
negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates the question being put
on Motion No. 14.
[English]
I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) 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.
He said: 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.
(1115 )
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.
15150
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.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am often shocked by the simple analysis of how our
society works and sometimes does not work for the people.
(1120 )
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for this chance to
demonstrate the merits of the Liberal approach to employment
equity and to expose the destructive nature of the proposed
amendment.
The effect of Motion No. 1 would be to exclude the private
sector altogether from the act. This would be tantamount to
repealing the existing Employment Equity Act. It is not acceptable
to the government.
The motion begs a very important question because it speaks to
the type of work that members of Parliament do in committees and
whether they are or are not listening to what people have to say.
Did hon. members opposite hear what the business community
had to say about employment equity during the hearings of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development? Perhaps
I can use this occasion to refresh their memories. The strongest
proponents of the legislation were also those organizations
representing some of Canada's largest employers, including the
Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters and Canadian National.
Banks alone employ nearly one-third of all federally regulated
private sector employees. W.J. Lomax of the Canadian Bankers
Association, like many others who testified, stated at the hearings
that employment equity ``has stimulated fundamental reviews and
enhancements in the bank's human resources policies and practices
which have benefited everyone. It has helped us lay the foundation
for managing an increasingly diverse workforce, something every
employer of choice in the 1990s wants to do well''.
The friends of business are speaking out against business. I have
heard hon. members across the way offer their curious
understanding of life in the Canadian workplace and employment
equity. Here we have a party that tells the world that it is in favour
of equality. It claims it is in favour of hiring on merit. It tells us to
seed opportunity for all and yet attacks a piece of legislation that
has helped employers clear away impediments for all Canadians.
I am going to take this opportunity to dispel some of the myths
the Reform Party has been stating. The first speaker on its behalf
said certain things that are not quite accurate. What does the bill
not do? The bill specifically states that it does not require
employers to hire unqualified people. That is what the bill says.
It also says that it does not require the federal public service to
set aside merit principles. That is what this bill says. It exempts
employers with less than 100 employees. The hon. member should
listen to this: It does not create a rigid quota system and it makes
clear this program must never cause undue hardship on an
employer.
15151
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That's Liberal arrogance.
Mr. Grubel: Very Orwellian.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, I hear some heckling on the
other side. Obviously the Reform Party has a great deal of
difficulty dealing with the facts when they are presented as clearly
and concisely as they have been this morning.
Canadians understand. The Reform Party couches its intentions
in elegant language but the people of Canada, the visible
minorities, the average Canadian, young people understand what
the Reform Party is all about. Its members may think they are
pulling the wool over people's eyes. However, the fact is that
everyone is waking up to the reality and the type of mean spirited
outlook the Reform Party day in and day out demonstrates in the
House.
Madam Speaker, let me continue to enlighten the members
opposite on the key issues of why employment equity builds a
fairer and more just society for everyone. The Reform Party's
position implies that people from designated groups choose greater
unemployment, they choose lower wages, they look for more
uncertainty as employees. They invite it. That is what visible
minorities, aboriginal Canadians and women want. They want to
make less than everybody else. That is what the Reform Party
would like Canadians to believe.
(1125)
Canadians are more reasonable. They understand that
employment equity is not about favouring one group. It is the
realization that in our society there is something called systemic
discrimination, that people sometimes have to overcome
insurmountable barriers to find work and move ahead.
The thoughts I have expressed today arise from rational
discussion in every single part of the country. When people look at
the statistics and at the fact that women make less than men in
comparable positions and that aboriginals are being shut out of
employment opportunities, they tell the government that
employment equity makes sense.
Mr. Grubel: Indian affairs is doing it.
Mr. Bevilacqua: I am somewhat surprised that the Reform Party
would stoop this low-
Mr. Grubel: Equal opportunity.
Mr. Bevilacqua: -and not allow Canadians from the
designated groups their right to a job and to prosper like every
other Canadian.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I wonder why Ontario
cancelled?
Mr. Grubel: It is because we do not like racism.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, I am one member who is
going to expose the Reform Party for exactly what it is-
Mr. Grubel: You are racist.
Mr. Bevilacqua: -a backward party.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask the hon.
member to withdraw his comments, please.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I was carried away in
the heat of debate. I withdraw the remark. Is the hon. member
going to identify the groups on the basis of colour?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, this type of behaviour in the
House which has become synonymous with Reform Party members
is quite shocking. In my six or seven years as a member of
Parliament-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I guess we do not like social
engineering, do we?
Mr. Bevilacqua: -nobody has ever used that term to describe
me. While I accept the apology, I think Canadians will understand
that the term used by the hon. member was unparliamentary and
unbecoming of a parliamentarian.
Mr. Grubel: Are you going to identify the minorities on the
basis of their colour?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, as this is the first time I have an opportunity to rise in this
House, I wish to welcome you back. You can, of course, appreciate
that we have no intention of supporting the motions and
amendments put forward by the Reform Party, and certainly not
those aimed at exempting the private sector from the application of
the Employment Equity Act.
With your permission, I would like to say that if we find
ourselves with such amendments, it is undoubtedly because the
Reform Party does not understand what employment equity is.
What is being proposed through this bill and through various
amendments is something that has been requested by a number of
Canadians, especially those who submitted briefs to the Abella
Commission and asked us to ensure not only that the Employment
Equity Act has a greater impact on the private sector but also that it
applies to the public service in general, which is what Bill C-64
will achieve.
(1130)
We found it difficult to understand the position put forward by
the Reform Party. How can they say on the one hand that the new
jobs in Canada are created by the private sector, especially by small
business, and claim on the other hand that the private sector should
be exempted from employment equity?
15152
Tabling a motion like the one put forward by our friends from
the Reform Party is to consciously deny that greater equality in
Canada and Quebec can be achieved through the private sector.
I would be tempted to say that it takes a whole lot of nerve to rise
in this place and make this kind of remark.
What is most disturbing about such a position is the line we were
given-and will keep hearing throughout the debate today I
guess-about white people-those the Reform calls the silent
majority-being discriminated against.
It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Speaker, to learn that
the committee met with officials of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, who told us that 55 per cent of available jobs were
being held by people with the traditional white, able-bodied and
non native profile, while only 45 per cent of the workforce actually
fits this description. This results in a situation where individuals
who belong to what the Reform Party calls the silent majority are
holding 55 per cent of the jobs, when in fact they represent 45 per
cent of the workforce. And they would have us believe that there is
reverse discrimination?
The truth of the matter is that, deep down, the Reform Party does
not believe in employment equity. It does not believe that, on the
job market as we know it today, certain people find it particularly
difficult to find a place for themselves, and these are women,
people with disabilities, native people and members of a visible
minority. I think that the Reform Party should have the courage to
say that it does not believe that these people are subject to any
particular form of discrimination and that it is our duty to ensure
that the four classes of persons referred to in this bill can find a
place not available to them at present.
When we look at statistics, there is cause for rejoicing but also
cause for concern. On the bright side-and I am sure this will
please the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health-the labour force attachment of women did increase. You
can see for yourself, statistics all say the same thing.
This is also true, to a lesser extent, of people with disabilities,
who probably account for seven or eight per cent of the workforce,
while making up 15 per cent of the overall population.
If you look at the situation of aboriginal peoples and members of
visible minorities, you see that very little progress was made since
1986, when the act was first implemented. There are still enormous
problems which, it must be recognized, are often related to culture.
However, the fact remains that there are groups which are
significantly under-represented in the workforce, particularly
aboriginal and disabled people, as well as members of visible
minorities.
We know, of course, what the Reform Party thinks of aboriginal
peoples, and we will get back to that issue later on during the
debate.
The Bloc supports this bill and is particularly pleased that it also
applies to the public service. Indeed, it was somewhat of a paradox
to ask private sector employers to make efforts and produce annual
reports, to meet objectives and related deadlines, without asking
the public service to meet the same objectives and expectations.
That approach was rather questionable. So, we are pleased to see
that the government will impose the same employment equity
objective to 300 crown corporations and to all the departments,
through Treasury Board.
(1135)
We are not saying that the bill cannot be improved; in fact, we
will discuss that issue when we look at the motions proposed by the
Bloc. We have a number of concerns, particularly as regards the
establishment of employment equity review tribunals.
We were hoping that the bill would include provisions providing
for the establishment of an employment equity review tribunal on
the basis of the actual representation of the designated groups.
As regards this issue, it must be said that the government was
particularly narrow minded and stubborn in its approach, from the
very beginning.
Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate today,
and I hope that Reform members will display the dignity and open
mindedness that should guide every parliamentarian.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to address Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
It is interesting that in speaking for the first time on this bill at
report stage I have just come from a meeting of the human rights
committee. The committee is reviewing the process of the national
strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities.
One of the key statistics presented at that meeting was that over
70 per cent of people with disabilities are not even in the labour
force, that employment is a major factor in keeping close to 50 per
cent of persons with disabilities below $10,000 in incomes in a
year. These are people who happen to have a disability. It does not
mean they have no ability.
Employment equity goes to the very heart of why people in our
country with substantial ability have not had an equal opportunity
to participate in the labour force, in the economy and to be
considered full, equal citizens in the matter of employment.
15153
One only needs to look at the recent edition of Canadian Social
Trends at an article on the employment of people with disabilities.
More than half of young people with disabilities were
unemployed.
If we look at any of the designated groups, we know that as a
society we have not been colour blind. We have not been blind to
disabilities. We have not been blind to race and ethnic origins. We
have not been blind to gender when it comes to employment.
Bill C-64 is about getting rid of all those blinders that have
somehow made us incapable of seeing the abilities of these people
to contribute through employment, to earn and to be self-sufficient
through employment.
Let me speak to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. They go to the heart of
how we as a society monitor and how employers monitor how well
they are doing in taking their blinders off when it comes to
employment, promotion and training opportunities and being fully
equal opportunity employers.
I have great concern over these motions. I do not understand how
members of the House and the public should no longer receive an
annual report from the minister consolidating information that
employers have already collected as required by the Employment
Equity Act. It is not only the reception of that information by the
minister, it is the public awareness of that information and the
awareness of that information by Parliament that allows us to make
good public policies.
The impact of the amendments in Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10
would be extremely damaging to Bill C-64. If implemented they
would remove the most effective tools we have to monitor
employment equity performance of individual private sector
employers. More to the point, they would eliminate the means for
Parliament to chart progress in achieving workplace equality and to
ensure accountability.
(1140)
The annual reporting requirement is as much about motivation as
it is monitoring. We heard from numerous witnesses before the
human rights committee about their experience over the last seven
years with the Employment Equity Act. They said the Employment
Equity Act had led them to take a look at their hiring practices, to
improve their hiring practices and to eliminate discriminatory
practices of which they had not been aware. Many of them said to
us it had substantially improved their human resources
management and the quality of their workforce.
The reporting which the Reform Party seeks to eliminate allows
employers the chance to see how they measure up against other
employers. The information forms part of the criteria for targeting
the advice and assistance to employers that human resources
development will offer in strengthening those employers'
employment equity programs. Far from being heavy handed, the
reports are an invaluable instrument to help government work more
co-operatively, effectively and constructively with the private
sector.
Furthermore, the annual reports improve the functioning of our
labour market by providing detailed information to organizations
whose purpose is to place members of designated groups and other
Canadians and improve their opportunity to participate in the
workforce. These organizations use the information to assist their
clients in targeting their job search and training programs.
Equally critical, they have been of paramount importance in
enabling legislators to assess the appropriateness of provisions of
the act and the practical operation of employment equity legislation
in the real working world. Many of the changes the bill before us
makes to the Employment Equity Act, which has been in place
since 1987, are the result of the experience over those seven to
eight years and of the information received not only by the minister
but by Parliament and by the public as to how the previous
legislation was working.
The yearly reports are our window into the workplace, providing
data for research and evaluation of employment equity principles
and methods. The insights we gain from this annual procedure are
as useful to us as they are to Canadian employers, to labour and to
members of designated groups. The major change in the bill is to
include the Public Service of Canada. I hesitate to say that most
segments of the private sector are doing better than the
Government of Canada in their employment of people who have
traditionally been disadvantaged in their employment advancement
and training. We as a government have a great deal to learn from
the private sector and we learn it largely through reports from the
private sector.
They serve another useful function. The minister's annual
employment equity report is a major tool for public education on
the principles and progress of employment equity in Canada, a
major tool for keeping us accountable for our progress in allowing
all Canadians to participate fully in all segments of society.
Annual reports on measures taken and results achieved have
been crucial as monitoring and motivational, dare I say
self-motivational, measures in the private sector since 1986. They
have recorded the steady progress the private sector has made in
achieving a more equitable and representative Canadian workforce.
They have however also focused our attention on areas of
weakness, reinforcing the need for the new employment equity
legislation we have before us today. Anyone who questions the
need for these provisions in Bill C-64 need look no further than the
latest statistics. Annual reports indicate that despite significant
progress for some individuals in the designated groups much more
remains to be done. I referred to some of those statistics this
15154
morning. I expect fully to refer to more for the other designated
groups as this debate proceeds.
(1145)
The reports show that even for those members of the designated
groups that were employed, most did not see the same wage gains
and promotion opportunities of other Canadians. Women,
aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of
visible minorities continue to find themselves on the bottom rung
of the economic and social ladder.
Until we see parity in the workplace there will be an ongoing
need for reporting to measure progress and to further progress. I
therefore urge the House to reject the amendments put forward.
Perhaps we sometimes do not like what we see when we report on
ourselves, but it is important that we look in the mirror and
improve the situation.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10
of Bill C-64 which deals with the employment equity issue.
I would like to say at the outset that the impassioned speech by
the deputy whip illustrates many of the concerns we in this party
have. We want to ensure that all people in this country have equal
opportunity to become the best they can become for themselves
and also their families.
We are particularly concerned in the Reform Party about those
individuals who are on the lower socioeconomic strata within our
society, to identify why they are there and to give those people the
tools and the opportunities that will enable them to stand on their
own two feet and become economically self-sustaining so that they
and their families can enjoy happier, more fruitful and productive
lives.
Employment equity does not do this. It is in fact highly
discriminatory. It says to a group of people who are identified by
the government that they cannot compete because of the colour of
their skin, because of their gender, because of their religious
background or wherever they came from. That is what it says. It is a
government designation. It is also insulting.
As a person who is made up of many different ethnic groups, and
I am speaking for other people who are also from different ethnic
groups, it is insulting to be told you are going to be hired on the
basis of the colour of your skin. What does it say to that person? It
says you cannot compete on the basis of merit, on the basis of your
skills, on the basis of your qualities; therefore we in the
government are going to do it for you. That, I submit to anybody,
regardless of where they come from, is an insult.
Employment equity is social engineering at its worst. It is the
government meddling in areas it ought not to meddle in. As I said
before, it is insulting to all minority groups.
We know that governments cannot legislate on how people think.
They must legislate against the expression of people's prejudices.
We cannot legislate against what people think. We cannot legislate
to the prejudices they hold within their heart. However,
governments must legislate against the expression of those
prejudices. That is the role of government: to ensure that those
prejudices are not in the realm of employment, are not in the realm
of living in a peaceful society within the beautiful country we have.
The role of government, instead of employment equity which is
really employment inequity, is in effect providing a level playing
field for all people. The deputy whip just mentioned that the people
in the lower socioeconomic groups are finding it extraordinarily
difficult to get on their own two feet. That is absolutely true. So
how do we address the problem? We ensure that prejudices are not
being expressed in the workforce. We also ensure that those
individuals have the opportunities to become the best they can
become. Give them the skills training or provide them with the
opportunities for skills training. Provide them with the
opportunities for education. Provide them with the abilities to get a
job. Provide them and everybody else with a strong economy.
(1150)
We must also as a government and as a country enforce
anti-discriminatory laws. Those must be enforced strongly, and
where discrimination occurs it must be quashed. That is the role of
government.
People do not realize that employment equity is highly
destructive to the soul of a country. Nobody takes into
consideration those people who are being jumped over for a
promotion because of the colour of their skin. You cannot say to
somebody from a minority group that they are going to get a job
over somebody else who is a Caucasian, for example. Nobody
takes into consideration what that does to the Caucasian person. It
is discriminatory to that person or whoever might be in their seat.
The only objective measure in getting a job is merit and merit
alone. Anything else is discrimination. The social engineering this
government wants to do is discriminatory in the highest extent.
When I spoke about what it does to Canadian society, the
government may not be aware of how divisive this policy is. I have
received many letters in my riding. I do not know who they are
from, but many individuals have said God bless you for saying that
employment equity is divisive.
What employment equity is doing is saying to people who are
being jumped over for jobs and promotions that they are not getting
them because of characteristics that have absolutely nothing to do
with merit. The characteristics that governments would apply to
15155
employment equity to ensure that subgroupings of people will get
jobs have nothing to do with merit. Colour, gender, religious
affiliation have nothing to do with merit and everything to do with
discrimination. It is by its very nature discriminatory.
I hope we will not follow through with this. I hope the
government supports these motions and helps to develop more
sense and sensibility over an issue that is very sensitive.
I would reiterate that we in this party are very sensitive to the
individuals who are the most dispossessed in our society. We want
to create a stronger economy so that they can fulfil their potential.
We want to ensure that people will get the proper education. We
want to ensure that they get the skills necessary to stand on their
own feet. We want to ensure that they and their children are going
to live in a safe environment.
I hope the government will join with us in ultimately putting
aside and eliminating employment equity, which says to people and
to companies that we need a certain number of quotas of these
groupings of individuals because the law says it must be so, rather
than advancing those people on the basis of merit. It also is highly
destructive to an economy. If you advance people on the basis of
characteristics other than merit, you actually weaken the economy
ultimately.
Employment equity is prejudicial. It is discriminatory. I hope
this government throws it away, as has been done in other parts of
the world, such as in California and in Ontario.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise in
the House today to debate Motions 15, 16 and 17 put forth by the
hon. member for Edmonton Southwest with respect to Bill C-64.
When we consider the number of amendments the members of
the Reform Party have presented to the House on this bill, it is clear
that their attempt is to weaken the effectiveness of the Employment
Equity Act.
[Translation]
Canadians often wonder whether there are differences between
political ideologies. I would encourage them to listen to this debate
because they will see that there are enormous differences. My
colleague has just made the claim that this program is divisive. It
can be divisive, yes, particularly when it is claimed that this was its
intended purpose, when the reasons such a program was created are
ignored.
(1155)
[English]
It is regrettable that the employment equity legislation is not
looked upon by my colleagues from the Reform Party as it is
intended to be. They do not see that it will make this nation a fairer
one in the way in which we treat Canadians. The unfairness and the
divisiveness occurs when people suggest that is what it does. This
legislation is something we should be proud of, not something we
should be running away from.
With regard to Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, the hon. member is
calling upon the government to eliminate provisions that are
integral to administering the act's monetary penalty system. To do
so would automatically eliminate the benefits inherent in such a
system. It would be like telling the referees at a hockey game that
they can call penalties but they cannot put anyone in the penalty
box. Without these provisions it would be impossible to ensure that
those private sector employees subject to the act fulfill their
obligations with regard to reporting requirements. It should be
noted that the monetary penalty system only applies in cases of
non-compliance with the reporting requirements in the act.
Motion No. 15 calls for the deletion of clause 38. Clause 38
gives employers the option of either paying the assessed penalty or
asking for an independent third party review, namely by an
employment equity tribunal. Clause 38 provides employers with
access to an open and fair appeal.
Motion No. 16 calls for the deletion of clause 39. This clause
combines the appeal and review mechanisms. An employer can
apply for the tribunal to review the assessed penalty or the
commission can take further action if an employer has neither paid
the assessment on time nor asked for a review.
Motion No. 17 calls for the deletion of clause 40. This clause is
necessary to enable the commission to take a negligent employer to
federal court to collect an unpaid assessment. If we remove the
ability to take this action, it will mean removing the possibility of
applying a just penalty to employers who are in contravention.
[Translation]
I would like to stress once again that the system of monetary
penalties applies only in cases of non-compliance with the
reporting requirements. Only then. To date the only mechanism
available to us for ensuring compliance with the reporting
requirement has been recourse to criminal proceedings, an
unwieldy process.
This system costs less and is less unwieldy and easier on
everyone concerned. For the reporting requirement to make any
sense the statute must include an enforcement mechanism. It is
totally illogical to set out monetary penalties without any means of
implementing those penalties.
If the government were to adopt the proposed amendments under
those circumstances, the reporting requirement would be
unenforceable. This is why I cannot support the hon. member's
motions.
15156
I would ask my colleagues in the Reform Party to look at the
government's intentions and motivation not just with open minds
but with open eyes as well. The intent is not to divide but to ensure
representation for the under-represented, to ensure that they are
taken into account. We are all aware that in the present system
those who are not as strong as others are not always treated in
a fair and equitable manner.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to debate the motions before us.
(1200 )
By way of introduction I call on the attention particularly of the
Reform Party, which participated in the committee on human rights
and the status of disabled persons, the committee I had the
privilege to chair and the committee that looked into this issue. The
members of the Reform Party on that committee have to admit as a
matter of truth that the vast majority of witnesses who appeared
before our committee were truly in support of the Employment
Equity Act.
In other words, we strengthened what exists to include a wider
coverage of the public sector and we instituted an enforcement
mechanism.
We have called our report ``Employment Equity: A Commitment
to Merit'' to give a very clear message. I submit the Reform Party
has to be reminded that the cross-section of witnesses regardless of
their position on legislated employment equity all agreed on at
least four points, all of which we agree with. The skills and abilities
to perform a job are essential. Fairness in employment practices is
a necessity. Elimination of employment barriers helps ensure
applicants can compete on an equal footing. In principle
employment equity and therefore a realization of diversity is
crucial.
However, we believe Canada, a country committed to social
justice, must have these sentiments in policy. What better way to
show that than to put these sentiments, that commitment, into a
piece of law? That is the ultimate sense of a commitment to
fairness and equality. We have succeeded in having a committee
which included the participation of members of the Reform Party.
If I honestly believed the motions we are now debating would
clearly improve and strengthen this act I would support them but I
think we can see these are only attempts to emasculate this piece of
legislation. I feel they are trying to mislead Canadians. No one is
being discriminated against in this employment equity law. We
would only ensure that discrimination does not happen. In other
words, we have the force of law. If only employers would comply
with the principle of equity, and the vast majority do, then there
would be nothing to fear.
Here we have enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms equality for all. However, even the charter in a
subsection of section 15 ensures we must have the ability as the
Government of Canada to adopt policies and programs and pass
legislation that give teeth to the principle of equality for these
disadvantaged groups: women, people with disabilities, people of
First Nations and people designated as visible minorities.
I am really disheartened the members opposite could not see that
we must have a centrepiece for our social equity, this piece of
legislation on employment equity. This is really looked on as a
hallmark by the people of the world, making Canada a unique
nation where we exalt the importance of excellence in human
endeavour while at the same time being committed to disallowing a
retreat from that. This is not about reverse discrimination. This is
not about redressing the injustices of the past. This is ensuring once
and for all the injustices of the past do not recur.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): 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.
(1205 )
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.
15157
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.
(1210 )
It is very dangerous to think we can legislate away
discrimination.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find myself increasingly
frustrated by the many roadblocks the Reform Party is attempting
to erect to circumvent this important piece of legislation. This
piece of legislation is good for Canada and for all Canadians. As
parliamentarians we have an opportunity to do the right thing and
this legislation will do that.
For all who believe in the principles of democracy and the noble
ideals of this institution, the Employment Equity Act is a welcome
reminder of the values we hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation
that Canadians are just and honourable people who passionately
believe in fairness and dignity for all.
To those of us who are members of the designated groups,
employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is
not about inequity. It is not about getting more than your fair share.
It is about equity. It is the freedom to exercise our constitutionally
guaranteed rights to participate in the political process and to make
contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.
My expertise on this matter lies in my life and professional work
experience and growing up in a northern aboriginal community
where the chances were far greater that I would walk the halls of a
penitentiary than the corridors of Parliament. That is why the
Reform Party's damaging amendments disturb me so deeply. They
would seriously weaken the intent and impact of the legislation.
Of all the ill conceived amendments proposed by my hon.
colleague, none concerns me more than Motion No. 6. If adopted
this amendment would diminish Bill C-64 by deleting the
aboriginal employers exemption in clause 7. It would remove the
provision that allows an employer engaged primarily in promoting
and serving the interests of aboriginal peoples to give preference in
employment to aboriginal peoples unless that preference
constitutes a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
In practical terms this means the act would not allow municipal
bands on Indian reserves to give preference to the hiring of
aboriginal peoples, perhaps the most disadvantaged of the groups
the legislation is attempting to assist.
It is a well known fact that many non-aboriginal peoples work in
and around large populated areas of aboriginal people. That has
been historically so and still is in some cases. It should be the intent
of all parliamentarians to change that and make accessible
employment opportunities and training in other labour market
related areas available for aboriginal peoples. There is nothing
wrong with that.
Indian band councils that employ more than 100 workers are
subject to the Employment Equity Act. I want to be clear that this
provision does not relieve aboriginal employers of the obligation to
hire aboriginal women and/or persons with disabilities.
I remind the House that aboriginal peoples of Canada have a
unique constitutional status affirmed in section 35. These
agreements are done through the British parliamentary system as
we have it here. These agreements are recognized nationally and
internationally. This status demands special consideration for
measures aimed at enhancing their cultural, economic and political
autonomy. It rejects no one.
Historically, as I have stated, many aboriginal communities and
populations have been served by non-aboriginal people, and well in
many cases. There have been problems but that is not the issue. The
issue is fairness.
Perhaps most important, this motion goes against the very grain
of the Liberal commitment to self-government. We are determined
to give greater autonomy to aboriginal communities and to put the
running of aboriginal affairs in aboriginal peoples' hands. Why
not? We have struggled with it as governments for 125 years. There
15158
are many problems. The aboriginal people should have the
opportunity to serve themselves and to serve themselves well. They
should at least have the opportunity to make their own decisions.
(1215)
Clause 7 of Bill C-64 supports the aspirations of aboriginal
communities for economic self-sufficiency and self-determination.
It simply confirms that aboriginal organizations may hire only
aboriginals, provided such a hiring is justified under the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
I must confess that I am very surprised that the Reform Party
would take the position it has on Motion No. 6. One can only
assume it is based on a profound lack of awareness of the plight of
aboriginal peoples in the country. It is no secret that members on
the opposite side of the Chamber are not in favour of employment
equity. We know that. However, from my reading of their minority
report, it appears that they still believe the Canadian Human Rights
Commission has an important role to play.
There is a certain irony in the Reform's proposition. First is the
fact that the commission's chair, Max Yalden, expressed his
support for clause 7 when he appeared before the Standing
Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
In response to a specific question about the exemption he said:
I think that aboriginal groups are a particularly disadvantaged group, a
special group. The idea that native groups would, in their very special and
particular situation, have a preferential hiring policy is not unreasonable.
There is another technical reason why clause 7 cannot be
removed from the act. It is to ensure consistency with the Canadian
Human Rights Act. I can only conclude, as did the commissioners
in the Canadian Human Rights Commission annual report last year,
that occasionally the tone of the opposition to employment equity
seems more than a little shrill.
Thus far I have outlined the logical and legal arguments to reject
the Reform Party's proposal. Far more potent are the facts of
everyday life for the aboriginal peoples of the country.
Discrimination is not an abstract, philosophical concept for
disadvantaged Canadians. Abuse of power by a privileged few is
the daily reality for members of the designated groups, particularly
if they are aboriginal.
I challenge the hon. member to test the merits of his motion on
members of aboriginal communities, especially those who are
unemployed. Unemployment is very high. On some reserves where
there are few employment opportunities the unemployment rate
can rise as high as 95 per cent.
Tragically, aboriginal peoples account for the most disturbing
rate of suicide. It is five times the national average. Let us think of
the communities of Pangnirtung, the Whitedog reserve and
Shamattawa, some communities in which we have seen many
young people commit suicide. Not only do my people have the
highest rates of suicide in the country but they are the highest in the
world.
At the other end of the scale aboriginal people have the lowest
incomes in Canada. Almost one-half of all aboriginal adults have
incomes of less than $10,000. Not coincidentally they face far more
crowded housing conditions. Twenty-nine per cent of non-reserve
aboriginals live in housing with more than one person per room,
compared with just 2 per cent of the general population. The rate is
31 per cent for Inuit people.
There is a corresponding high welfare dependency rate as well. It
is 43 per cent on reserves, or almost five times the national
population, and over 50 per cent among the off reserve population.
I am sure the Reform Party knows we share its view that it is
better for people to be working. It is better for aboriginal people to
become independent and self-sustaining than to be on welfare. It is
better that we make these opportunities available than to slam
doors in their faces so that progress cannot be made where help is
needed.
(1220 )
Young aboriginal people are the most likely to drop out of
school, to become teenage parents and to abuse substances such as
alcohol, drugs and even solvents. With only 3 per cent of aboriginal
teens completing high school, they have the highest illiteracy rates
and lowest incomes in the country. Not surprisingly, more graduate
from juvenile courts than from colleges or universities.
I would never deny the successes. We have made some progress.
I am willing to stand here and admit there has been progress.
However it is not enough, not at this point.
We have many graduates coming out of universities and
colleges. For those who manage to rise above the daunting
disadvantages, the thousands of aboriginal men and women who
acquire university degrees and professional skills each year,
employment opportunities still do not match their availability. The
unemployment rate of aboriginal peoples with university degrees is
nearly double that of white males with university educations.
That is a fact. That is the truth. It is undeniable. Those highly
skilled and highly trained individuals are desperately needed in
their communities. That is why the act exempts aboriginal
organizations from provisions which might prohibit them from
hiring these invaluable employees.
In conclusion, it is a lamentable commentary on Canadian
society that the odds are stacked against far too many aboriginal
people. With Bill C-64 we can start to turn the statistics around.
Centuries of inappropriate and damaging policies developed and
administered predominantly by non-aboriginals have taught us that
15159
it is time to let the Indian, Inuit and Metis people take control of
their own destiny.
That is why we need clause 7 in Bill C-64. The focus of federal
policies is on seizing opportunities. The agents of change are
individuals, because we are convinced that with the right support
individuals can help themselves. That philosophy is at the heart of
the aboriginal employers' exemption clause. A majority of
Canadians recognize-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is with the greatest
of reluctance that I interrupt the minister, but at this stage of debate
the allocation is for 10 minutes. I would seek the guidance of the
House.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we
have the consent of the House for the minister to wrap up her
remarks on this matter in a couple of minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It might be helpful if the
minister could give the Chair some indication of how much longer
she would need to conclude her remarks. If it is less than a minute,
is there unanimous consent for the minister to conclude her
remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all
members of the House for allowing me to complete my remarks.
A majority of Canadians recognize the terrible plight of
aboriginal peoples and realize that for constitutional, social and
moral reasons special efforts are necessary to reverse their
misfortune.
I am proud that I count myself among them. I urge all like
minded members of the House to defeat the draconian motion to
ensure that we remain the majority and do the right thing by
leaving the doors of opportunity open for aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This
morning the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan proposed, in
relation to Private Members' Business today, that private
members' hour not be proceeded with, with the intention of having
his motion that was to be debated this afternoon dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence.
I understand there is some misunderstanding concerning what he
meant this morning. I think Your Honour would find that it was
clear to all, except perhaps the Table and the Chair, the intention as
discussed this morning was that the item would drop to the bottom
of the order of precedence and we would proceed with private
members' hour tomorrow in the usual way.
I simply rise to clarify that point and if consent of the House is
required, to seek it.
(1225 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary for his clarification. We all understood that
the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan with
regard to the Private Members' Business listed for later this day
was that it be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence. I
would seek the agreement of the House. Is that correct?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): And so ordered.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
in support of the amendment of my colleague from Edmonton
Southwest to delete application of the bill in the private sector and
to speak not only in favour of the amendment but against the
employment equity notion and concept completely.
One of the things that frustrated me this morning in listening to
the debate was that very few government members are looking at
the issues and countering the points of view presented against
employment equity. Rather they have chosen to be meanspirited.
They have chosen to Reform bash and make this a party issue. I
take exception to that. I take exception to the member for York
North who rose in his place earlier today and called the Reform
Party meanspirited.
I come from the private sector. I have run businesses for 25
years. I have hired and fired many people, male and female, and
have had people work for me of various colours and of various
ethnic backgrounds. I think I am a tough taskmaster but I am not
meanspirited. I am an employer with a heart and with compassion.
I believe in paying people a good day's wage for a good day's work.
I am against the government-union philosophy that once people
get a job in government they cannot be let go and have a right to
work. That is not correct. It is not available in the private sector.
Also it is unacceptable in the private sector to have government
intrude into our lives with more and more regulations.
Employment equity does that very thing. It tries to get into the
lives of corporations and tries to dictate to them whom they have to
hire and why they have to hire them. It is doing nothing more than
social and economic engineering which this party stands against.
It is not meanspirited to be against employment equity. It is not
meanspirited to point out to the member for York North that we
believe the best person available for the job should be hired for the
job. If those best people are 10 black people, then they should be
hired. If it is 10 white people, then they should be hired. If it is 10
native Indians, then they should be hired.
If the government tells the employer that he has to hire based on
a quota because the demographics of the census it has taken says
15160
that Canada is made up of certain colours and certain percentages
of people that his business has to hire on that basis, then it is
basically forcing corporations in a lot of cases to hire people who
are not as qualified.
Mr. Keyes: Nonsense.
Mr. Silye: I hear the member opposite say: ``Nonsense''. My
argument is that whether people are male, female, black, white,
yellow, red or green as the member for Edmonton Southwest said,
it does not matter. They should apply for the job. If they have the
training and the qualifications they will get hired.
The employer should be free to hire. Is that not freedom? Is that
not freedom of choice? Is that not in the charter of rights? What
rights do employers have?
We are trying to make a better system for the country. We are
trying to encourage people. It is equal opportunity that is
important. It is on equal opportunity that certain members of the
government are missing the point. They fail to see that we are
looking for introducing and encouraging businesses to hire the best
person for the job but to give the black, the white, the Indian, the
yellow or whatever race, equal opportunity to be interviewed for
the job. That is the kind of legislation from which we need to
protect people. Those are the kinds of regulations that perhaps we
could introduce into our system to make sure that everybody has an
equal opportunity. If they do not, then they are discriminated
against and then we should do something about it.
(1230)
Employers cannot be legislated to hire certain types of people
because of quotas. That is not meanspirited. That is right spirited.
That is trying to put the heart and the mind in the right place to do
the right thing for the right people, both employers and employees.
The government is interfering once again in corporate Canada by
bringing in regulations and red tape it has no business doing.
Government is better off doing other things, such as balancing the
budget and getting us out of debt. That is the problem. Government
wants to add to it at 3 per cent of GDP per year. The deficit is not
the problem, the debt is. Legislation such as this is going to make it
more difficult and more inefficient for corporations to operate and
function.
In my years as an employer in the private sector, I have
interviewed and hired a lot of people who are disadvantaged. I have
hired people who were mentally handicapped. They did a good job
in delivering internal documentation. Our encouraging them,
working with them and seeing them grow in spirit, heart and mind
was an encouragement and a boost for all of us. I did not need
legislation to do that. Nobody ordered me to hire this gentleman.
In a company I still own, there is currently an individual who is
physically handicapped. He is short and one leg is shorter than the
other. He is just one heck of a good draftsman. He is a great spirit
around the office and fun to have. I have hired males, females,
francophones. I have hired a Czechoslovakian who can barely
speak English. Nobody ordered me to do this.
I am saying this as a representative of the private sector, which I
believe I am. I am about the average of the private sector. Certainly
there are some people in the private sector who would take
advantage of the rules but I would say the majority of people,
which I represent, do not need legislation like this to tell them
whom to hire and why to hire them. They are going to look for
competent people, people who are going to fit into the mould of
their corporations and their companies.
To have this arbitrary law that says that you must now, Mr. Silye,
interview people of this nature and this type because of the census
is wrong. It says this is the only classification you can look for,
when perhaps the very types of people I am being ordered to hire do
not have the training or the background to do that particular job.
Let us stick to the issues. Let us not bash the Liberal Party, the
Reform Party. Let us talk about the merits and the demerits, the
pluses and the minuses of employment equity. That is a debate.
That is what the people are here to hear. That is what Canadians
want to know about. Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?
I stand today in my place to say I think it is a bad thing. If other
hon. members feel it is a good thing, let them say why they think it
is good. Let me say why I think it is bad. Let us not get into Reform
bashing and the meanspirited kind of crap that is going on which
leads to unparliamentary language. Let us just stick to the issue.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the government's argument
and that of the individuals who represent employment equity is that
in the name of introducing equity and equality they are, and I hope
they can see this, introducing a form of inequality, a form of
inequity that discriminates reversely against the very
discrimination they claim they are trying to avoid.
It is the same with the Income Tax Act which is convoluted,
complicated and confusing. In the name of clarification, in the
name of fairness, in the name of equity the government has
introduced 1,000 plus pages of rulings and amendments to clarify
the Income Tax Act. By adding another 1,000 pages is that
clarifying it or is that confusing it even more? It is making it worse
and worse and worse. It is the same kind of thing that is going on
with this bill. By preaching and supporting employment equity the
Liberals are introducing more legislation, more rules that make it
more confusing, more convoluted, more complicated. It is a
detriment to business. It is a detriment to the hard working citizens
15161
of the country who want to move forward and get on with the job
of stimulating the economy. At every turn another government law
comes in with more red tape, more regulations, more rules to
follow, more auditors. Now we are going to have people auditors.
(1235)
It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is checking our books
every frigging month. It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is
interpreting the rules for the government because we need money.
Let me remind all those people at Revenue Canada it is not the
deficit that is the problem. Let me remind the Government of
Canada it is not the deficit that is the problem. The debt is the
problem and the government is adding to it. High taxes are the
problem and the government is adding to that. It is bad regulations,
lousy rules like this, terrible laws like this which are the problem.
The government is not listening. It is continually adding to the
problem.
I understand it is in the hearts of Liberals. I know they believe
what they are saying comes from the heart and they feel it is
helping Canadians. I believe when they say they are trying to
eliminate discrimination that they are honest and sincere about it.
But I am saying that in so doing they are not really eliminating
discrimination, they are introducing a new form of discrimination.
That is what is wrong. That is what I ask the government to
reconsider.
This amendment deals with the private sector. I hope members
opposite will agree it has been a good employer, has promoted the
economy. Eighty-five per cent of revenue generated in tax dollars
comes from the private sector. At least leave it alone.
If the government really believes in the legislation, then just
apply it to the government sector. It can do what it wants with the
bureaucracy. That is their baby. Do it, try it and see the inequities
that will be introduced. But please support the amendment because
it leaves one sector of the economy that can function viably well
and will not in any way deter or detract from the intent of the bill. I
know how the private sector thinks, acts and deals. It usually hires
the best person regardless of race, colour, creed or whatever.
If the government is intent on introducing employment equity,
go ahead and do it in the public sector. Go ahead and do it with the
bureaucrats and watch the uprising that will occur. I know a lot of
people in the bureaucracy are not happy with the form of
affirmative action that is taking place right now.
I am asking the government to reconsider its opposition to the
amendment and do something constructive. It can have it both
ways. By accepting this amendment it can go ahead with the bill, if
it is just applied to the public sector and leave the private sector
alone. Then we will see which will end up being right.
I believe the bill is an intrusion into our lives. It is an intrusion
which the government does not need to do. It is an intrusion it
would be better off to avoid and leave alone. I believe that
employers can be trusted. I know that for the most part private
sector employers, the vast majority, can be trusted.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a great interest in hockey. Does it
discriminate against players from all over the world? No. It sought
to change the rules, to bring in the best hockey players in the world.
We have a National Hockey League that has every nationality
playing on it. Was there employment equity introduced in that
profession? No. We do not need employment equity. I stand against
employment equity. I stand for this amendment and for equal
opportunity for all.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the summer I spent my time in my riding of
Windsor-St. Clair which is the centre of my universe.
I returned to this session of Parliament with a renewed
commitment to employment equity. I am convinced more than ever
that Bill C-64 is the right thing for Canada right now. I am
concerned though, after meeting with my constituents over the
summer recess, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about
both the intent and the implications of our improved employment
equity legislation.
Distortions have resulted from a misinterpretation and frankly, a
misrepresentation of the facts by a few. I have discovered that once
these misconceptions are straightened out and the legislation fully
understood, it gains widespread support. It seems to be essential
that these misconceptions be corrected on the floor of the House.
I specifically want to address several of the arguments raised in
the Reform Party's minority report. I am particularly concerned
about the attitude that report reflects, the ``I'm all right, I have got
mine, Jack'' attitude. I have mine so everyone else can go to hell.
That is the tone of the Reform Party's minority report. The idea in
it is that I got ahead and so everyone else should just try to get there
on their own. I do not owe it to anybody to help them or to assist
them or to do anything.
(1240)
It is disingenuous for a woman to suggest that because she is
successful, got there on her own, she owes nothing to her sisters
who came before her. It is disingenuous for any of us to suggest
that anyone can get to this job, can become an accountant, can
become a banker or can become a painter. It is disingenuous, false
and deludes the Canadian public.
The idea that as Canadians we should not acknowledge and
address systemic inequities and that in promoting that view it is
okay to promulgate misinformation and to promote misconceptions
is anathema to the government.
15162
The first assumption I would like to address is the assumption
that women, persons with disabilities, members of visible
minorities and aboriginal people are somehow enjoying special
privileges that compensate for their disadvantage and that are way
ahead of the general population. Informed individuals know that
nothing could be further from the truth.
The 1995 United Nations human development report concluded
that it is still an unequal world. Canada in practice is still in many
respects an unequal country. Canadian employers agree with this.
A witness representing the Manitoba telephone system told
members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons the following:
There is very little evidence in the workforce to suggest that in the absence of
affirmative measures or some intervention equality will indeed occur. We live in
a society that prefers some values, some characteristics over others. The kind of
legislation that employment equity represents is an appropriate intervention in
the flow of business decision making.
That was stated by the private sector.
There was also the suggestion that the current Employment
Equity Act has been so effective that it has eliminated employment
problems for members of the designated groups. The facts speak
for themselves.
The 1984 annual report on the Employment Equity Act, a copy
of which all members of Parliament received, concluded that a
number of Canadian companies covered by the legislation have yet
to completely satisfy its intent. Of the 343 employers in the report,
four employers had no female employees; 74 did not employ a
single aboriginal person; 65 did not have persons with disabilities
on staff; 28 employed no members of visible minority groups. This
was the situation nearly eight years after the current act was
proclaimed into force in August 1986.
Like other government members here today, I certainly applaud
the progress that has been made over the years, but I think all
members will agree that we have some distance to go.
Let us look at the suggestion that the market automatically
solves inequities without government intervention, a suggestion
that was heard from the last speaker. That theory was clearly
addressed in the recently released United Nations report, the most
exhaustive examination of the issue of inequality for women in our
time. It was prepared by an international team of eminent
consultants and stated:
The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver
equality of opportunity because of the prevailing inequities in power structures.
When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary, both
through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative
actions.
I remind the House that Canada is the number one nation in the
world in its human development index ranking according to the
UN. However, when we look at it closer and consider women's
economic positions in our society, our country drops from number
one to number nine.
To add insult to injury, there are some who use women, members
of visible minority groups, aboriginals and persons with disabilities
as scapegoats as if we were somehow to blame for the stresses
resulting from our rapidly changing economy.
We are in the midst of one of the most momentous transitions in
human history. In the span of this century we have shifted through
the agricultural and industrial eras and are hurtling fast forward to
the information age and the knowledge economy. If the general
population finds itself a victim in this vortex, imagine how much
greater the impact is on Canadians who are members of minority
groups, on women, on persons with disabilities.
(1245)
It is not fair to suggest, as the Reform minority report does, that
statistical data are skewed to make the case for employment equity.
Canada's statistics and its statistical analyses are the best in world,
so much so that our data is sought after by governments and by
academics everywhere. It is true that no statistics are perfect,
including those for gross domestic product, unemployment, or
demographics. But does the Reform Party seriously suggest that we
should abandon the pursuit of social justice and abandon the
pursuit of economic growth just because there are numerous ways
to read the numbers?
Incredibly, the Reform Party report also asserts that employment
equity somehow hurts designated groups. It suggests that
designation ``carries with it a presumption of racial and gender
inferiority''. I would like to hear the Reform Party stand before
Women in Trades and Technology, who organized a letter writing
campaign in support of Bill C-64, and say that. Letters to the
human resources minister urged the government to go further.
Many letters stated that much work needs to be done to urge,
coerce, educate, and assist employers and unions to increase and
enhance women's opportunities to train and work in their
industries.
These women are asking the government to modify policy and
program interventions to support and encourage true equality in the
workplace. They are not alone. In case somebody thinks they are
alone, let me remind the Reform Party and this House that women
are 52 per cent of the population.
The vast majority of witnesses before the Standing Committee
on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons fully endorsed
the direction of our new legislation. They recognize that treating
people differently in order to achieve equality has nothing to do
15163
with inferiority. It has everything to do with ensuring each and
every job applicant has an equal chance to prove his or her abilities.
Recently I saw a cartoon that showed a monkey, a seal, an
elephant and a dog being told by a circus job interviewer: ``For a
just selection, everyone has to take the same examination. Now
please, I would like each of you to climb that tree''. The idea that
there is some ideal to which we all must conform is ridiculous. It is
also discriminatory, and Canadians will not put up with it. If this
legislation does nothing else, it will finally put some of these
outdated and damaging beliefs to rest. It will ensure that yet
another generation does not adopt the hardened attitudes held by
their elders and perpetuate systemic and overt discrimination.
Employment equity is a guarantee that every little girl and every
little boy will grow up in this country secure in the knowledge that
each can pursue his or her dreams, that they will some day work in
a world that is fair, that is equal, that is free of racial slurs and
unwanted pats on the backside, where doors are always open
instead of being inaccessible. They will be assured of being
citizens of a Canada where they can have a fighting chance of
achieving their personal career goals.
Is that intrusive? Is it really so much to ask? Today's working
Canadians and tomorrow's future parents, taxpayers, and
employees expect no less. The hon. members of this House must
not let them down.
I am convinced that Bill C-64 is the next logical step in our
nation's progress. I am anxious to get on with the job.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House to speak to report stage of Bill C-64, in particular the
motions being given today by the third party, the Reform Party.
Some of what I have heard here in the House troubles me a great
deal, which is why I thought it only appropriate that I rise and try to
put down some of the myths that are being put forward by the third
party through these motions. I was likewise distressed with a
colleague of mine, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
(1250 )
We heard, and I will quote as closely as I can, the member for
Hamilton-Wentworth say that the bureaucracy should not be
intervening in the matters of private enterprise. We heard that the
government is being intrusive, according to the member for
Calgary Centre, and I will try to quote him as closely as I can: ``I
have chosen as a member myself to be meanspirited, but the
government is trying to get into the face and get into the lives of
private enterprise''. Those are pretty meanspirited remarks coming
from the member for Calgary Centre.
It is the job of government to ensure that things are done as
properly as they can be, as we work as a team for Canada and what
is in the best interests of the people of this great land. For example,
when we talk about getting in the face of private enterprise, as the
member for Calgary Centre has mentioned, yes, the government in
matters of transportation got into the face of the transportation
sector when it came to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway
system.
Would we have a national airline if the government did not
intervene? Would we have a national system of airports if the
government did not intervene? Would we have a Trans-Canada
Highway if the government did not intervene? Would there be a
stretch of road of Trans-Canada Highway between Sault Ste. Marie
and Winnipeg? Of course not. Why would we build that chunk of
road? Who would use that chunk of road? Very few people would
use that chunk of road. Naturally private enterprises would say they
are not going to build that chunk of road, it does not make any
sense.
The government is here to provide the vision in order to make
things happen that we know are going to be in the best interests of
Canadians, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but in the long
term in the best interests of Canadians.
I will try to explain why I believe the third party amendments,
the motions, and the remarks of my colleague from
Hamilton-Wentworth are quite frankly outrageous and
misdirected and are totally lacking in fact.
The first myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is
about hiring the unqualified. We heard the hon. member for
Calgary Centre take us down that road. The simple fact is that Bill
C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an unqualified person. It
does not do that. Why carry the myth? It is quite explicit in fact on
that point.
Let me quote Mona Katawne of the Manitoba Telephone System
who testified before the standing committee on the issue. She
stated: ``There is no evidence that hiring from among the
designated group members is a lowering of qualifications. In fact
the evidence is to the contrary. There are people from the
designated groups who are both available to work and qualified to
work.''
The fact is that our economy has surpluses of qualified people
from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out there.
However, this myth persists because of misinformation, because
there is a lack of looking at the facts.
A perfect example is the Gallup poll which appeared in the
December 23, 1993, Toronto Star, just after we were elected to this
place. The headline blared that 74 per cent opposed job equity
programs. Let us take a look at the actual question that was asked:
Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more
women and minority group members for management positions, or
should government take no action whatsoever and hire new
employees based solely on their qualifications? The question
unfairly focused on people to choose between actively attempting
to hire more women and minority group members and hiring based
on
15164
qualifications. It is amazing, quite frankly, that only 74 per cent
chose qualifications.
Employment equity means broadening access to all qualified
people. It means giving people the chance to become better
qualified.
The second myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is
about redressing the wrongs of the past. When this issue has come
up with constituents, I have heard people ask why today's young
white males have to pay for the sins of their fathers and
grandfathers. I trust that I am not the only member of Parliament
who has heard that remark. The short answer is they should not.
Employment equity is about today's reality, today's problems, not
yesterday's.
(1255)
The simple fact is that in 1993 white men without disabilities
made up nearly 55 per cent of all workers newly hired, even though
they only make up 45 per cent of the labour market. On virtually
any scale, people in the designated groups fare poorly in today's
labour market. The issue is not what happened in 1955 or in 1925
but what is happening in 1995. There are still barriers to full
participation by members of the designated groups. The goal is to
end those barriers, not to create a new discrimination against
someone else.
Let us look at one specific group that fares especially poorly in
our labour market and that is people with disabilities. Only about
60 per cent of adults with disabilities are in the labour market at all.
They have unemployment rates that are almost double the national
average. That costs us all.
The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study
that looked at people with mental handicaps. They calculated the
loss to our economy from the large scale segregation of these
people from our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to
unemployment, social assistance costs, and lost consumption. They
found that the cost to Canada's employment of keeping these
people out of society is $4.6 billion a year. That is today's problem,
not yesterday's problem.
The final myth I want to touch on is the issue of goals and
quotas. We have said it before and I will say it again: the bill
expressly prohibits the imposition of quotas. The goal setting that
Bill C-64 calls for is driven by flexible targets based on real
business assessments of what is doable. Those goals are tools that
measure success in breaking down the barriers. In fact, business
witnesses who appeared before the standing committee agreed.
They have no problem with this approach.
If the hon. member for Calgary Centre had heard what went on at
the standing committee he too would realize that. Do not get me
wrong. The hon. member for Calgary Centre may be the jewel in
the crown when it comes to employing people. He may have it
right. But there are a lot of employers out there who have it wrong,
and the hon. member has to come to terms with that.
Bill C-64 is not designated to create a numbers mentality.
Employers who adopt that mentality and attempt to short circuit the
process do no one any benefit. The intent is to create a climate that
encourages employers to build a better, fairer workplace through
rethinking how their current processes work in practice and
developing better ones.
It would be easy for the government to do as the Reform Party
suggests: to step back and do nothing to address the very real
barriers in our labour market today. But it will not. The costs to our
economy and our society are simply too high. Millions of
Canadians are not prepared to accept a system that says do not do
anything and let private enterprise take care of itself. They are not
prepared to accept the notion that the response to the very real
economic uncertainty faced by many workers is to set group
against group.
Canadians are not asking for special privileges here. Most
witnesses representing designated groups made that very clear.
They are asking for strong efforts to push companies to end barriers
to full participation. In doing so, it does not help to have the
ill-informed comments made by members of the third party on this
issue. They have chosen to see the world as a zero sum game where
any gain by a person who is in a designated group must be at the
expense of someone else. They have chosen to fan the flames of
intolerance rather than trying to find the solutions that address the
very real needs of more than half of Canada's workforce. It means
we define merit in terms that are clear, relevant and legitimate, in
terms we recognize, diversity and the different conditions under
which people live and work.
(1300)
Bill C-64 is about creating that kind of plan in workplaces right
across the federally regulated sector based on overcoming myths
through action. Who said there are none so blind as those who will
not see?
I appeal to the third party to overcome these myths I have
addressed. I appeal to the Reform Party to withdraw its motions. It
would be the right thing to do.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just
found out there is a positive aspect of being moved one more seat to
the left. I am a little closer to the Speaker's plane of view. I
appreciate being recognized in this very important debate.
This is one of the issues that really galvanizes what our party
stands for. It also makes strikingly clear what lies at the heart of the
Reform Party. I have very strong views when it comes to
employment equity, affirmative action and government striking the
fundamental policy framework that we expect our bureaucrats, our
departments, our crown agencies and those businesses within the
15165
federal realm of regulation in setting the parameters of the type of
behaviour we expect them to follow.
This is not the first time employment equity has been debated in
the House. In the last Parliament on a number of occasions, be they
private members' bills or motions put forward on days to eliminate
racial discrimination, members put on record what they believed
about employment equity.
In the last Parliament we may have differed substantially on our
economic approaches and policies and on our social policies but
there was almost a unanimity of agreement with the New
Democratic Party and with the Conservative Party when it was in
government about a couple of fundamental facts about Canadian
society.
One was that systemic discrimination unfortunately does exist. It
exists in the federal workplace. It exists in the provincial workplace
and it exists in the private sector. Anybody who would get up in the
Chamber and indicate they believe there is no such thing as
systemic discrimination clearly is from another planet or has been
living with their head in the sand for longer than I have been on this
earth.
Systemic discrimination is as real as the air we breathe and is as
alive today as the people who sit in these chairs. More than once I
have talked from the perspective of an MP who represents the
largest indigenous black community in Canada, in Preston, North
Preston, East Preston, Cherry Brook, Lake Loon. Those
communities have been established in Nova Scotia a lot longer than
the community I was born in, New Waterford. Most people in Nova
Scotia see New Waterford as more of a Nova Scotian community
than the Prestons which were founded by blacks from other parts of
the globe over hundreds of years.
Preston community is six kilometres outside the boundaries of
my city. My city has an unemployment rate of anywhere from 7.5
to 8.5 per cent. In the almost entirely black community, a
ghettoized situation from 250 years ago, there are unemployment
rates upward of 80 per cent in the winter.
One of the first things I did in 1988 after I was elected to
represent the good people of the riding of Dartmouth was go to the
Speaker of the day. I asked the Speaker, Mr. Fraser, whether it was
possible to use some of my budget to get a survey done. Our
budgets were more restrictive.
(1305 )
I explained what I wanted to do. I had gone to the bureaucrats.
They are good people, not racists, not bigots. I asked them what
information they had with respect to unemployment levels in the
black community. They said they did not have any. Why not? How
can there be federal programs such as skills training, job
development and re-entry programs that are supposed to help those
groups most dislocated from labour if there are no statistics about
the degree of the problem in a particular community?
Bureaucracies knew there were problems but did not want to
quantify them. We spent $15,000 out of my budget and we
quantified. There were no startling revelations except that finally
somebody white in a position of authority said the facts are the
facts and they are indisputable. It was only then that bureaucracies
felt comfortable trying to address the problems of barriers to entry
and participation by visible minorities in my area.
I am saddened to say that seven years later I am worn down from
my efforts of trying to battle systemic discrimination. Daily it
becomes more systemic and rooted in the way bureaucracies
operate.
The bill does not seek to tell employers they have to hire a black
person or a native Canadian or a Cape Bretoner, which I am, if they
are not qualified. It sets down a framework and sets out a policy
objective that says: ``If everybody in your organization looks like
me, speaks like me and acts like me, they are more likely to hire
somebody who looks like me, acts like me and speaks like me''.
That is not individual racism; it is the way life is in most
organizations.
The bill seeks to build on the previous employment equity
legislation passed in 1986 and say we have come a long way but we
have a mighty long way to go yet. We cannot succumb to the insane
attitudes of some on the loony right of the political spectrum and
say, as the member from Windsor said: ``I am all right Jack. What
is your problem?''
I will tell the House what some of the problems are. A good
businessman came to my office a week and a half ago. He operates
without a line of credit at the bank and employs 17 to 20 people in
the winter. He finances his operation through a finance company at
28.8 per cent interest. He cannot access capital through the regular
sources. He has been shying away from the sheriff for 20 years. He
is a black businessman. There are barriers to his access to capital
from banks.
Seven years ago when we did the study the banks were angry
because I fingered the banks and said there was systemic
discrimination in their lending practices. They wailed. The facts
coming to my office told me it was that way. How could an
individual that resilient, who could operate from a line of credit
from a finance company and who had no cash flow to work with
stay in business? That was the best entrepreneur I ever saw.
Just think what would have happened if he was a white
entrepreneur who had access to capital from the banks. Banks such
as the
15166
Royal Bank have recognized that when we talk about systemic
discrimination we are not pointing a finger at individuals; we are
stating facts based on statistics and we must work aggressively
within a policy framework to deal with it.
This bill simply sets out the framework. It says the government
is still very much concerned that its crown agencies and
corporations may not be working as hard as they should to ensure
there are no barriers to participation in the federal public service,
crown corporations and the private sector which is federally
regulated, to ensure the people who do the hiring, the people in
power, recognize they may have to work a little harder. If we deal
on the other side of it with the people in the labour market, maybe
the young black who wants to be an entrepreneur does not
understand he could be welcomed as a client of the bank. He also
has his own barriers to participation in the equity market or the
labour market.
(1310)
Sometimes that extra effort is made to say: ``We will hire 12
people and we have to make sure we do not send it just to the
community college''. The community college in my area does not
have the proper participation of minority groups. It is not
proportional. If employers say they have made a commitment to
hire qualified individuals, and it is all about the merit principle,
they must recognize that by past practices there may be some
groups in society that do not feel they are wanted at the door and do
not make the application.
Employers, because they have set it out as their policy to
encourage qualified members of minority groups to participate,
must make sure that instead of going just to the community college
they also go to the Dartmouth East Black Learners Centre and say:
``We need people with these skills. Are there some people you can
send for us to look at?''
That is what this bill is about. It is about setting a direction. It is
about setting a goal. It is about a process whereby we remind
ourselves that systemic discrimination does exist and that we can
do something about it to ensure individuals are not discriminated
against based on colour, language, gender, sexual orientation or any
of those other things that really should not make a difference.
I hope some of the misinformation from the Reform Party's
minority report is put to the test. This is not about special
treatment. This is about equal treatment and equal access. The bill
does not solve the problem but it is another small step in the right
direction toward allowing everyone regardless of colour, race or
language to develop to the fullness of their potential. Governments
are setting the tone and the direction to remove the obstacles to that
full participation.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fourth United Nations world
conference on women concluded recently. I was there as a delegate.
I learned that many developed and developing countries look to
Canada for leadership in issues of justice, equality and human
rights.
I want to place Bill C-64 in that same international context. I
want to look at our international obligations and how Bill C-64 will
help us meet them. I want to consider some relevant international
experiences with employment equity. I want to show the bill puts
teeth in our commitment to equality and shows a leadership badly
needed around the world.
First I will discuss recent landmarks in understanding this issue.
On August 17 the United Nations development program released
its sixth human development report. Apart from the overall
assessment, the report focuses on the situation facing women
around the world.
I am certain every member of the House took pride when once
again Canada earned the highest ranking on the human
development index. It is the third year running. It told the world
what Canadians already know, that this country offers a quality of
life that is second to none.
I know each one of us also saw that we placed ninth on the
gender related development index. Our track record on the place of
women in society is not so good. Why that low? One of the factors
is the economic gap between men and women. Money talks, and in
Canada right now that means men shout while women whisper.
Some in the House say there are very good reasons for this gap.
They say we should just stand aside while the market works its
mysterious forces. This is not what the authors of the United
Nations human development report say. They point out that trickle
down theories and laissez-faire approaches do not work
particularly well to raise the economic status of women:
The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver
equality of opportunity because of prevailing inequities in power structures.
When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary both
through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative
actions.
The government understands the need for real action. This bill
addresses that need by making markets work better. It will help
women enter occupations that traditionally have excluded them. It
will help women make their way from lower wage occupational
ghettos.
(1315 )
In 1993 in British Columbia women in full time occupations
earned 67 per cent less than men. In 1993 in British Columbia
women who had post-secondary education earned less than men
with a grade 10 education. In 1993 in British Columbia, 99 per cent
15167
of secretaries and stenographers were women, but they still earned
79 per cent less than male stenographers and secretaries.
We need this bill to remove the glass ceiling that still restricts
women in many workplaces. It will do the same for aboriginal
people, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities.
Bill C-64 is consistent with our international obligations. For
many years Canada has been a signatory to international
agreements on discrimination, human rights, women's rights, and
labour force issues. Let me touch on a few of these.
The United Nations has a number of conventions that cover
equality issues. The convention on the elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women commits us to pursue the equality of
the sexes. Article 24 reads:
States Parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level
aimed at achieving the full realization of the rights recognized in the present
Convention.
This includes modifying, and I quote again from the United
Nations:
-the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view
to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the
sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
Bill C-64 begins to take those steps.
A similar commitment exists as a result of the United Nations
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Article 7 touches on that. It says that states parties to the covenant
recognize the right to ``equal opportunity for everyone to be
promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject
to no consideration other than those of seniority and competence''.
Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian persons with disabilities find it
difficult to achieve promotion in the workplace.
This bill is about finding and removing the barriers that prevent
designated members from realizing their legitimate aspirations in
the workplace of this country. Equal opportunity means removing
barriers so people can get to the starting gate equally.
There are many conventions I can talk about: the international
covenant on civil and political rights; the international covenant on
the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; and a number
of international labour organization conventions.
Article 2 of the international labour convention says:
Members must undertake to declare and pursue a national policy designed to
promote equality of opportunity in respect of employment and occupation.
It says that each member must undertake to enact such legislation
as may be calculated to secure acceptance and observance of the
policy. This is what we are doing here with this bill.
Canada must take its international commitments seriously. We
negotiate, we sign, we lead, we ratify these agreements with the
intention of living up to them, or else why do we do it? It is
certainly true with conventions on human rights and workplace
issues.
We can and we do point with pride to Bill C-64 and the existing
Employment Equity Act, because as a predecessor it is an example
of how this government wants to work to make equality of
opportunity a real goal, not just something that is airy-fairy that we
just talk about.
Canada is not alone in this process. Other countries have signed
these conventions and many are dealing with the same issues we
are dealing with here today.
For example, Australia is a country with which we have much in
common. We are both senior members of the Commonwealth. We
share similar constitutional and legal traditions. We both have
significant aboriginal and visible minority populations. Persons
with disabilities have become prominent advocates for their own
cause. Women are taking a lead in society. Like Canada, Australia
has an employment equity act too. Like us, they recognize an
obligation to break down barriers, and they are doing so.
Let us look at The Netherlands. The celebration of the 50th
anniversary of its liberation by Canadian soldiers has reminded us
of our close ties with The Netherlands. When the Dutch
government looked for a legislated approach to promote the full
integration of their immigrants into the labour force, where do you
think they turned? Which country do you think provided a model of
effective and appropriate legislation? Canada.
Examples such as that show why Canada can attend international
conferences with real pride. Regardless of the issue, we can point
to initiatives we have taken at home, co-operation with other
countries, and a commitment to results. This is true on workplace
issues as well as human rights issues. We have much to do in
Canada, however. This country has consistently tried to do more
than meet a minimum standard. We have been motivated by the
caring and tolerance of our society to do better.
(1320 )
We realize that equality of opportunity means much more than
the absence of formal discrimination. It means building a climate
that encourages everyone to participate in our society and our
economy. That is becoming a lesson to the world. Many countries
are coming to grips with equality issues. We are leaders. They look
to us for leadership.
15168
Canada has a distinguished history in human rights in the rest
of the world. Countries that are looking for effective ways to
improve human rights within their own borders are also looking
to Canada. Countries that want to recognize their growing
multicultural nature are looking to Canada. I saw over and over
in Beijing how everyone turned to Canada for leadership.
Everyone felt that Canada is the country in the world they all want
to aspire to become.
The Canadian approach to employment equity is a real
contribution to the international community. It starts with the idea
that all Canadians share a commitment to opportunity and a
willingness to find solutions. It speaks to the finest qualities in our
national spirit. Passing this bill will send an important message to a
world that needs more of this spirit and looks to Canada to lead the
way.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the 1980s Judge Abella coined the phrase employment equity
because she rejected the term affirmative action. Employment
equity is a Canadian concept.
There are a lot of myths surrounding the issue of employment
equity, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out. The
recent publicity surrounding the affirmative action policies in the
United States and employment equity in the recent election has led
some people to some inaccurate conclusions. They get the
impression from the media that suddenly Americans, including the
U.S. Supreme Court, are turning against affirmative action en
masse. A vocal few seem ready to jump on the bandwagon, asking:
``If the Americans are not going to keep it, why should we?''
Before everyone falls for the myth that fairness in the workplace
has fallen into disfavour all across North America, let me quickly
review the facts. The real story is that programs that affirm
employment equity are alive and well on both sides of the border.
The most compelling argument for employment equity is that
people actually want it.
Let us look at the situation in Ontario, where roughly two-thirds
of businesses responding to a poll just after the recent election
reported they are in favour of reforming or keeping that province's
employment equity law as it is. Only 8 per cent said they would
cease implementing employment equity initiatives if the law is
repealed, with 69 per cent saying that it would not have any impact
on their company's equity plans. That sentiment is reflected in
comments by the director of human resources policy for the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Ian Howcroft was reported
as saying that many of their members have already started
employment equity initiatives and that he believes most of them
will continue.
Many members of the private sector are strong proponents of
employment equity. They recognize the benefits to their
corporation, benefits in terms of improving quality of working life
in their organization and in real financial benefits. Unlike the
members of the Reform Party, these corporations are moving their
companies into the 21st century. The Reform Party members think
we should still live in the 1950s world of Ozzie and Harriet.
Mr. Milliken: 1850s.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Part of the misunderstanding of the bill arises
from the myths created in the recent Ontario election. Employment
equity is not about quotas. Moreover, this bill specifically states
that employers are not required to hire unqualified members or
create new positions to satisfy the legislation's requirements.
The federal legislation takes a human resource planning
approach to employment equity, relying on consultation and
negotiation to achieve workplace goals. I know about this approach
firsthand, as I worked as a consultant to the Ontario universities in
developing training materials for employment equity.
Another prevalent and incorrect assumption is that the federal
employment equity is a carbon copy of American affirmative
action policy and furthermore that Americans are now rejecting it
out of hand. Neither belief is true. Let us start with the most
controversial features of the U.S. affirmative action program, set
asides. Set asides require that a specific percentage of government
contract funds go to minority contractors. These are mandatory
preferences dictated by law. Polls show that although most
Americans favour affirmative action, they are opposed to this kind
of preferential treatment. I want to set the record straight on this
point. There is absolutely no equivalent to set asides in the
Canadian approach to employment equity. They simply do not exist
and have never existed.
(1325)
Let us look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on
affirmative action. Some people have a vague notion that this
decision somehow struck down federal affirmative action
programs, but let us look again. First, this decision was about set
asides, which do not exist in Canada. Moreover, the Supreme Court
decision did not strike down any federal laws or dismantle
contracting policies, nor did it decide they were unconstitutional.
The court simply requires federal affirmative action programs to
meet the same standards of review already in place for state and
municipal affirmative action programs, namely that the program
serve a compelling interest and that it be narrowly tailored to
achieve that purpose.
The bottom line is that no program was struck down by this
decision. On the contrary, seven out of the nine justices confirmed
that sometimes affirmative action is indeed required to counter the
effects of systemic discrimination.
15169
President Clinton pointed out that leading economists and
distinguished American business leaders report their companies
are stronger and their profits larger because of the advantages of
workforce diversity. They insist that regardless of legislation they
will pursue affirmative action because it is the key to future
economic success in the global marketplace. Indeed, as I stated
earlier, it is the Canadian corporations and the private sector that
are very strong proponents of employment equity. The Reform
Party purports to be a party for business special interest groups,
so why can it not listen to the leaders in the private sector?
Seeking solutions to employment inequality is precisely what
Bill C-64 is about. The objective of our legislation is to ensure
equality and justice for all. Canadians have an unwavering faith in
values of fairness and equity. We believe heart and soul that there
should be no discrepancy between our words and our deeds. We are
determined that our constitutionally guaranteed rights should be a
daily fact of life for every child, woman and man in this country.
Equality and equity is the very foundation of our nation.
It is in fact because of our employment equity legislation that we
are on the leading edge in preparing this country for the
unparalleled demands of the 21st century global economy. While
we still have more to do in ensuring that all Canadians achieve their
potential, our experience with employment equity has made us a
world leader in the field, acting as a role model for other nations
designing equity legislation. That is not rhetoric, but a reality of
which every Canadian can be proud.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was not really going to participate in this debate today in light of
the excellent interventions by a number of my colleagues. Then the
hon. member for Calgary Centre got into the act and started
spouting the most unbelievable nonsense, so I felt it was necessary
to correct some of the statements he made. Really, I was shocked.
He worked himself into a real lather in the course of his speech
about the evils of employment equity, which I thought most
Canadians accepted.
I have some quotes which I think are going to leave him
speechless. He will wish he had not spoken. He pretended he was
speaking on behalf of the entire private sector in Canada in
speaking to this set of amendments moved by his colleague, the
hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
I am surprised that a relatively enlightened member of the
Reform Party would propose the amendments the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest has proposed. One suspects that his leader
told him that this was caucus policy and since he is the critic he had
better propose the amendments, so he did. I am sure in his heart of
hearts he wishes he did not have to put forward such ridiculous
amendments. What he is really doing is gutting this bill. He is
taking out all references in the bill to the private sector.
The private sector has lived with this legislation now for many
years and has functioned with it. I have spoken with constituents of
mine who are bound by this legislation, not because it is binding on
them specifically but because if they wish to contract with the
federal government they are required to comply with it. They have
been in compliance for some years, with some initial discomfort
but not significant. They have found that their workplace has
improved as a result of their compliance with this legislation. That
has been the experience of most of the private sector employers
affected by this legislation who have found that compliance is not
all that difficult. Not only is it not difficult. It results in a better
working environment in the places where it has been applied.
(1330)
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest must know this
experience. He is a man of affairs; he has travelled around and has
some businesses in the country. He must know the hon. member for
Calgary Centre was talking through his hat this morning when he
spouted the nonsense about the act being a bad thing for the private
sector in Canada and one that stops job creation in the country.
Quite frankly that is absolute rubbish.
Mr. McClelland: He said that it was not necessary.
Mr. Milliken: I hear the hon. member. That may be so because
so many have complied with the rules already. Why not leave the
rules in place? If everyone is complying and the rules are in place,
fine, it does not do any harm to have them there. Yet the hon.
member for Calgary Centre spouted absolute rubbish. He suggested
that we did not need the bill at all and that we should scrap it. That
is what these amendments do and I am not in favour of the
amendments.
City police forces, national chartered banks, multinational
computer companies and more and more Canadian employers are
enjoying the benefits of workplace inclusiveness and fairness, with
good reason. Margaret Wente wrote in the Globe and Mail that
employment equity programs were ``spreading, not shrinking.
Their biggest boosters are powerful, middle aged white
men-.They need diversity in their work forces, not to remedy past
injustices but to be more successful''.
The business argument for employment equity is
straightforward. As our population becomes more racially diverse,
it is essential that a company's workforce reflects the market it
wants to sell to. This is increasingly true in the international
marketplace. Business organizations ranging from B.C. Hydro to
North American Life Assurance and the Bank of Montreal realize
this reality and fully endorse equal opportunity employment. Many
of those employers appeared before the committee. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North who is chair of the committee heard
those
15170
witnesses. He has spoken about it and will continue to speak about
it in the course of the discussion on the bill.
They and other progressive employers have instituted
employment equity programs in their workplaces not out of
benevolence but out of good business sense. They have discovered
that the best argument for employment equity is the bottom line.
Black & McDonald, the Toronto based mechanical and electrical
services contractor, is an example in point. Many of the people
hired as maintenance mechanics and building supervisors over the
past few years were recent immigrants due as much to a skill
shortage in Canada as to the firm's employment equity efforts. The
company reports that the performance of this division has
improved dramatically, which it credits to its highly skilled, hard
working visible minority employees and the market potential they
represent. More and more satisfied customers have resulted in
more and more contracts for Black & McDonald.
A recent Conference Board of Canada study found that half the
employers surveyed capitalized on Canada's ethnocultural
diversity to expand their market share. That trend will only
increase. By 2001 visible minorities should form 48 per cent of the
consumer market in Toronto, 20 per cent in Montreal, and 39 per
cent in Vancouver. Firms that fail to act quickly will be left behind
in a country experiencing huge population growth among
designated groups.
Upwards of three-quarters of new entrants into the workforce by
the turn of the next century, which is only five years from now, will
be members of the designated groups. At a time when human
capital far outweighs location or physical resources, it is
imperative that employers maximize their people potential in the
workplace.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce chairman Al Flood put it
very well when he said:
The issue of underemployed intellectual capital is a major one for Canadian
business in a competitive global society. A business in a complex, changing
world needs more than one point of view. Those diverse views will only flourish
in an environment uncontaminated by notions of ability based on gender, race,
religion and so on.
The key word in that quote is ability because employment equity
is really about assuring equal opportunities to individuals qualified
to do the job. We are not talking, as the previous speaker said,
about quotas. We are talking about ability, about assuring equal
opportunities to qualified individuals. It is no coincidence then that
half of all CIBC managers are women. Canada's banks have one of
the best records in the economy for building diversity into their
workforce. Yet never do we hear that such progress comes at
someone else's expense.
(1335)
While I am on the subject of someone else's expense I quote
again from the little green book of the Reform. I have a quote here
from the hon. member for Beaver River that will be instructive.
Perhaps it explains in part the silly amendments of the hon.
member for Edmonton Southwest. She said: ``Women are just
trying to lift themselves up to the detriment and expense of men''.
This is what the hon. member for Beaver River says. I presume she
believes this nonsense. I suspect what happened is that she has been
sitting there listening to her seatmate, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest, telling her that is what happens.
When the hon. member for Halifax or the hon. member for
Nepean start speaking to me about lifting themselves up or
changing their roles, I do not feel it is at my expense. I have never
felt that it was at my expense. I am sure my male colleagues on this
side of the House would share that view.
Our female colleagues are not getting additional rights at our
expense. If they get any additional rights we are all improved by
them. There is not a finite supply of rights. Rights are created
because individuals are there. Because individuals get rights does
not mean the rights of someone else are necessarily diminished.
Some may feel that way, but I suggest it is not true that they are
necessarily diminished. The extension of the rights granted by this
legislation have benefited all our society enormously.
I do not know when the hon. member for Beaver River made this
quote. Unfortunately the little green book, or ``The Gospel
According to Preston Manning and the Reform Party'' as its other
title reads, does not tell us when the quotation was made.
Nevertheless the words are written down and I am sure the hon.
member for Beaver River could not explain them away.
Another very short quote from her is: ``I am basically a Tory''. I
do not know why she is in the Reform Party if she is basically a
Tory. She should help the hon. member for Saint John. Then we
have a famous quote of her leader, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest: ``Deborah Grey is the prairie Margaret Thatcher''.
What a fire that is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know the member is
a very experienced member, but from time to time the Chair must
remind members of certain rules of the House.
Although he might be quoting from a text, those words are still
attributed to whoever has the floor in the House. I would encourage
the member to refer to member's ridings as the tradition and the
rules of the House call for and not by proper names.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was being very careful only to use
the proper name when it was in the quote. I was being very careful
not to use it in any other sense. That is why I said the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest used the words: ``Deborah Grey is the
15171
prairie Margaret Thatcher''. I do not think he said at the time that
the hon. member for Beaver River was the prairie Margaret
Thatcher. That is all I was doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On that point, I am of the
understanding at this time that when any member in the House
reads a quote it is just as attributable to that person as if he or she
were saying it.
If I have erred I will gladly come back to the House and make
that correction before all my peers, my colleagues here. However I
am of the understanding at this time that any quote is attributed as
if the person himself or herself is saying it. I will come back to the
House if necessary.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I accept the admonition.
I have finished my quotes in any event.
Those with the most experience with employment equity are
usually its staunchest defenders. With nearly two decades of equity
programs in the workplace Sun Life Assurance vice-president Lucy
Greene says: ``It is just part of our thinking. It is good business
sense. Everybody should be doing it''.
Few would agree more than Troy Peck, a 25-year old
administrative assistant with the planning department of the city of
Vancouver. His employer adopted employment equity in 1976
when Troy was still a little boy with a spinal tumour whose future
employment prospects did not look promising. Thanks to
employment equity this qualified young man who uses a
wheelchair found his job on the basis of merit. Troy told the
Vancouver Province this past summer:
Employment equity gives you the chance not to be automatically dismissed
as an applicant because of your disability. It gives you the chance to show you
are skilled and able to perform.
(1340)
That is all any member of the designated groups is asking of the
House. They just want an opportunity to prove that talent comes in
all kinds of packages. They ask us to remember that what is
important is not the package but the gift inside it. Our gift to future
generations in the country must be the assurance that we will give
every last young woman and man that chance. With Bill C-64
unamended we can do exactly that.
I urge hon. members of the Reform Party to withdraw these
amendments and proceed with the bill as it stands.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill C-64, the
employment equity act.
The fourth United Nations world conference of women
concluded recently. An event like that one has many benefits for
Canada. One is that it gives us an international context to assess
how well Canada has done and how far we have to go.
During my remarks today I want to place Bill C-64 in that same
international context and to look at our international obligations
and how Bill C-64 will help us to meet them. I want to consider
some relevant international experiences with employment equity. I
want to show that the bill puts teeth in our commitment to equality
and shows the kind of leadership that is badly needed around the
world.
Let me begin by discussing a recent landmark in understanding
the issue. On August 17 the United Nations development program
released its sixth human development report. In addition to its
overall assessment the report focuses on the situation facing
women around the world.
I am certain that every member of the House took pride when
once again Canada earned the highest ranking on the human
development index. It told the world what Canadians already knew
so well, that this country offers a quality of life that is second to
none.
However I am certain that each of us knows that Canada placed
ninth on the gender related development index. Our track record on
the place of women in society is not good enough. One might ask
why it is that low. One factor is the economic gap between women
and men. Money talks and in Canada right now that means men
shout while women whisper.
Some in the House say there are very good reasons for this gap.
They say we should just stand aside while the market works in its
mysterious way. That is not what the authors of the United Nations
human development report says. They point out that trickle down
theories and laissez-faire approaches do not work particularly well
to raise the economic status of women. I quote:
The free workings of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver
equality of opportunity because of prevailing inequities in power structures.
When such structural barriers exist, government intervention is necessary, both
through comprehensive policy reforms and through a series of affirmative
actions.
The government understands the need for real action. The bill
will help address that need by making markets work better. It will
help women enter occupations that traditionally have excluded
them. It will help women make their way from lower wage
occupational ghettos. It will help organizations remove the glass
ceiling that restricts women in many workplaces. It will do the
same for aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members
of visible minorities.
Bill C-64 is consistent with our international obligations. For
many years Canada has been a signatory to international
agreements on discrimination, human rights, women's rights and
labour force issues. Let me touch on a few of them.
15172
The UN has a number of conventions that cover equality issues.
The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination
against women commits us to pursue the equality of the sexes.
Article 24 reads:
State parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level
aimed at achieving full realization of the rights recognized in the present
Convention.
This includes modifying:
-the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view
to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customs and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the
sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
(1345 )
To do that means taking real steps such as an active program of
the type we have introduced in Bill C-64.
A similar commitment exists as a result of the UN's
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Article 7 touches on conditions of work. It reads that states that are
party to the covenant recognize the right to:
Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an
appropriate higher level subject to no considerations other than those of
seniority and competence.
This bill is about finding and removing the barriers that prevent
designated group members from realizing their legitimate
aspirations in the workplace, the barriers that still prevent people in
designated groups from competing fairly for promotions they want.
There are other similar conventions that our country has signed
and ratified over time. I will just name a few: the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination; and a number of international labour organization
conventions.
I would like to refer to the second article of ILO Convention No.
111 concerning discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation which states:
Members undertake to declare and pursue a national policy designed to
promote equality of opportunity in respect of employment and occupation.
Article 3 of the same convention states:
-each member undertakes to enact such legislation as may be calculated to
secure acceptance and observance of those policy.
Canada takes its international commitments seriously. We
negotiate, sign and ratify these agreements with the intention of
living up to them fully. That is certainly true with conventions on
human rights and workplace issues such as these.
We can and do point with pride to Bill C-64 and the existing
Employment Equity Act as its predecessor as an example of the
government at work to make the equality of opportunity we all
want a real goal. Canada is not alone in this process. Other
countries have signed these conventions and many are dealing with
many of the same issues in society and the economy as we are.
For example, Australia is a country with which we have much in
common. We are both senior members of the Commonwealth. We
share similar constitutional and legal traditions. We both have
significant aboriginal and visible minority populations. Persons
with disabilities have become prominent advocates for their own
cause. Women are taking on leading positions in society. Like
Canada, Australia has an employment equity act. Like us, it
recognizes an obligation to break down barriers and it is doing so.
Another interesting case is that of the Netherlands. The
celebration of the 50th anniversary of its liberation by Canadian
soldiers has reminded us of our close ties. It reminds us of the
many Dutch people who have made new homes here over the years.
When the Dutch government looked for a legislated approach to
promote the full integration of its immigrants into the labour force
and therefore society, where did it turn? Which country provided a
model of effective and appropriate legislation? The answer is
Canada.
Examples such as that show why Canada can attend international
conferences with real pride. Regardless of the issue, we can point
to initiatives we have taken at home, co-operation with other
countries and a commitment to results. Certainly that is true on
workplace issues and on human rights issues.
While we have much to do, Canada has consistently tried to do
more to meet some minimum standard. We have been motivated by
the caring and tolerance of a society to do better. We realize that
equality of opportunity means much more than the absence of
formal discrimination. It means building a climate that encourages
everyone to participate in our society and our economy.
That is becoming a lesson to the world. Many countries are
coming to grips with equality issues. They know we are leaders.
Canada has a distinguished history in human rights in the
international community. Countries that are looking for effective
ways to improve human rights within their own borders are looking
to Canada. Countries that want to recognize their growing
multicultural nature are looking to Canada.
The Canadian approach to employment equity is a real
contribution to the international community. It starts with the idea
that all Canadians share a commitment to opportunity and the
willingness to find solutions. It speaks to the finest qualities in our
national spirit.
Passing this bill will send an important message to a world that
needs more of this spirit.
15173
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in offering
my comments on Bill C-64 and the report of the standing
committee, I want to go back to the fall of 1993.
[Translation]
At the time, Canada was in the middle of an election campaign,
and the Liberal Party published a campaign program in which it
formulated its commitments.
(1350)
This campaign document explained the philosophy behind these
commitments. At the beginning of the red book, our leader, the
man Canadians chose as their Prime Minister, set the tone for a
program I was proud to defend.
This is what he said, and I quote: ``The result is a Liberal plan for
Canada firmly anchored in the principle that governing is about
people, and that government must be judged by its effectiveness in
promoting human dignity, justice, fairness, and opportunity. This is
our approach, and this election is about presenting that choice to
Canadians''.
[English]
Consider those words: ``Our platform was one of jobs and
growth but it was not a narrow economic platform. It spoke to a
vision of society in which growth reaches everyone. It spoke to a
vision of society in which everyone has opportunities in practice,
not just in theory''.
On this side of the House when we think about the kind of
Canada that we are engaged in building, we see a united people
building a great country. We see a Canada with opportunity for all.
Our Canada would have a strong and sustainable economy. Our
economic pie would grow bigger through the skill, commitment
and innovation of Canadian workers. From the chief executive
officer to the newest employee, everyone would help create the
opportunities of tomorrow. The government would work with them
to take on the challenges that markets alone cannot.
[Translation]
The workplace, always according to the Liberal vision, must
reflect the diversity of the population. It must never raise barriers
to prevent someone from doing a job of which he or she is proud
and participating fully in the development of this country. The
Canadian workplace should emulate the best of what can be found
in the rest of the world.
[English]
That competitive economy would exist hand in hand with a
tolerant and generous society. It would live with the golden rule
that exists in all faiths that I have seen. Our culture, our race, our
sex, none of these would be a barrier to friendship or to
contribution. We would learn from each other and grow richer in
the process.
In our vision of Canada people would resolve differences in a
spirit of goodwill. They would know that a reasonable people can
usually find common ground to work out agreement. Our Canada
would be one that builds on our traditional core values of equality,
justice and fair shares of the opportunities that build better lives
and a better country. It would recognize, as the red book did, that
we exist in this society together and not apart.
Canadians are far more than individuals driven by impersonal
economic forces and narrow self-interest. We support and are
supported by our families, our communities and our country. That
has always been true. From the earliest days of human settlement
here we have always worked best when we have worked together. It
remains true to this day.
The Liberal vision of Canada mirrors the aspirations Canadians
have for our country. We want to live together in progress and in
peace. In a troubled world Canadians recognize just how much we
have accomplished in reaching for this vision. Our ranking in the
United Nations human development report is a tribute to that.
Still we know we have more to do. The situation of aboriginal
people or our lower ranking on the equality of women in the UN
report testify to what more we must do.
Employment equity is a basic part of making our vision real. It
recognizes that equality of opportunity is a goal that we have not
yet reached. It brings us closer to the ideal caring society that I
believe we all want.
[Translation]
In other words, if the concept of employment equity did not
exist, we would have to invent it. In fact, it is an essential step
towards ensuring that all Canadians have equal opportunities, are
aware of that fact and take full advantage of this equality.
[English]
Certainly there has been progress both in numbers and attitudes.
For example, the Bank of Montreal's president and chief operating
officer, Tony Comper, noted that representation had increased
significantly in that bank between 1993 and 1994. However, what
was every bit as important was the extent to which employees of
that bank have bought into the equity process. They have come to
understand that diversity is a business plus in our times.
(1355 )
The same is true at Union Gas in southwestern Ontario. A
company with a traditional workforce of technical and office
workers has built a very successful equity program. Why? Because
15174
the company has been committed to making it a success. It trains
staff on issues that arise in a diverse workforce so they can
understand the new expectations of customers, co-workers and the
company. It builds bridges, not walls, between employees in the
name of equity.
Let me quote the company's human resources manager, Maureen
Ghettes: ``We often look at the cost of something and not the
benefit. The cost of an employee who is not interested in working
with a certain group or who does not take time to understand an
accent is far greater''.
These business people are telling us that employment equity is
both a strategic social investment and an economic investment. It is
consistent with the kind of targeted action the government has
adopted across its agenda. It is an action we need more of.
As the red book pointed out and as our experience tells us,
people in the designated groups still have a long way to go. In the
years since the original Employment Equity Act was passed,
progress has been slow for women, people with disabilities,
aboriginal people and members of visible minority groups.
The standing committee heard from many groups with personal
stories of barriers that have not given way despite years of trying.
Representatives of the Filipino Technical and Professional
Association of Manitoba describe the experiences of well-trained
people whose credentials were simply dismissed on arriving in
Canada. These people were not even given partial credit toward
professional and technical designations despite their training and
years of experience.
[Translation]
Spokespersons for the disabled described the professional
ghettos to which persons with a mental deficiency are confined.
They explained the problems encountered by even the best trained
people who suffer from other disabilities. There may be various
reasons why it is difficult for this group of workers to find a job.
[English]
All of these groups are telling us that they believe in Canada.
They believe this country and its citizens have the generosity of
spirit to see what needs to be done and to do it. They are asking for
us to continue the great mission of diversity that has enriched this
country from its beginnings.
The Speaker: It is almost two o'clock. The hon. member will
have the floor when we come back to debate. It being 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
statements by members.
15174
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for 12 years now in the week leading up to Thanksgiving,
Canadians have made a special effort to celebrate National Family
Week.
This year, from October 2 to October 8, all Canadians will be
encouraged to look inward and to contemplate the fundamental
importance of our families and the relationships we have with the
loved ones around us. This year's theme ``Families are Forever:
Enjoy Family Times'' builds on the concept that families, like
precious jewels, are forever and need to be enjoyed, treasured and
celebrated.
The family unit is an essential building block of all societies.
The ties that bind us to each other are reflections of the ties that
keep the greater family, the global community, together. During
this National Family Week and indeed all year long we should
enjoy the time we spend with our family members and enjoy the
memories of good family ties.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal Department of Industry has made a complete
list of pressure tactics Ottawa could use to persuade the automotive
industry to campaign for the No side.
To convince Hyundai, it is hinted that the government might
want to recover the federal contribution for the construction of the
plant in Bromont. To convince GM, there would be a reference to
the $110 million loan approved by Ottawa for the Boisbriand plant.
To convince other parties, there would be references to federal
programs to help industry and facilitate access to the U.S. market.
It seems that the people they are counting on to do the job
include Yves Landry of Chrysler Corporation, identified as the
spokesperson for the automotive industry, and Maureen Darkes, the
Canadian President of General Motors who is responsible for the
Boisbriand plant. Leaders of the automotive industry should not
give in to this federal blackmail.
15175
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many Canadians
are outraged by the continuing French nuclear tests in the South
Pacific and are demanding our government take a stand. While
other countries have strongly condemned the French behaviour, the
Liberal government reaction has been pathetically weak.
Instead of recalling our ambassador from France for consultation
as the Reform Party demanded, the government lamely expressed
its regret and yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told a
member of the House that the nuclear tests were nothing to get
excited about.
Instead of standing up to France, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has chosen the path of appeasement over principles, just like the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois did on this same issue.
Unlike the government and the Official Opposition, the Reform
Party does stand up for its principles and will continue to condemn
the French nuclear testing because the people of Canada demand it.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are extremely disappointed at the weak response our
government has taken with the Government of France on nuclear
weapons testing in the South Pacific.
Last week I had the opportunity to address the Council of Europe
to convey the unhappiness of Canadians with France for
undertaking these tests. Delegations from Canada, Australia, Japan
and Mexico condemned France for its actions.
Today I am calling on Canadians to boycott products from
France such as wines, perfumes, bottled water, cheeses and
clothing until the French stop testing nuclear devices. A boycott
will pressure French business to lobby French President Chirac to
end testing sooner.
The government and Canadians must take a firmer stand on this
issue. It is incredible that on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki France should resume nuclear testing. It is
equally incredible that the Liberal government has been silent on
this issue which impacts negatively on world peace and on our
environment.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario Parks Association through its Communities in Bloom
program has announced that Niagara-on-the-Lake, a town which I
am proud to represent federally, has been named prettiest small
town in Ontario.
Competing in the category for communities with a population of
between 5,000 and 30,000, Niagara-on-the-Lake prevailed over
places such as Coburg, Collingwood, Dryden and Elliot Lake.
What struck the judges was the originality of the town's
landscaping. For this, much of the credit is due to the town's parks
and recreation department and to its residents.
Now Niagara-on-the-Lake will be concentrating its efforts on
achieving the national title, due to be announced in Ottawa next
fall. This is calling for the active participation of the town's
residents, who I am sure will rise to the challenge.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of us have a
role to play in protecting our environment. The federal government
is in a position to create policy which will protect the Canadian
environment and the environment of our neighbours.
This past July the Minister of the Environment introduced
measures to protect the environment of lakes, rivers and wetlands
across North America by banning lead shot under the authority of
the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Lead shot, which can be fatal when ingested by water fowl, is
released into the Canadian environment by water fowl hunters at
between 1,500 and 2,000 tonnes per year. This action taken by the
minister will end the poisoning of our waters and will protect
important species in our ecosystem. This measure will not only
save our environment, it is one small step toward maintaining
biodiversity and giving future generations an environment they can
live with.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
mining sector continues to provide jobs, investment and the
impetus for new technological development. Canada's mining
companies and mine workers are among the best in the world when
it comes to efficient, cost effective and safe mining practices.
Important for all Canadians, environmental concerns have become
a high priority for Canada's mining industry.
Government red tape is a big problem. As a member of the
government's rural caucus and especially as a northern Ontario MP,
I emphasize the importance of streamlining the regulatory process
which faces the mining industry.
15176
The current system creates unneeded duplication, slows the
approval process and wastes both industry and government time
and money.
I am pleased the government has recommended that the process
be made to serve Canadians, not hinder them, and that we have
agreed with industry, aboriginal and environmental groups and
others about what needs to be done.
I ask my colleagues to support action which will lead to the
streamlining of the regulatory process and I call on provincial
governments to co-operate to ensure that both senior levels of
government work together to make regulatory efficiency a priority.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the 1995 federal budget announced the closing of the La
Pocatière agri-food research centre, the only centre specializing in
research in sheep farming, with sheep production in full expansion.
Neither Quebec nor the regional community was consulted about
the closure, which was hidden away in the appendixes to the
budget. The comité de survie de la ferme expérimentale thought it
had succeeded in extracting a moratorium, enabling it to revive
agricultural research in the cradle of farming research in Quebec.
Unfortunately, despite the minister's promise, the department
has begun to remove the centre's equipment, in spite of the
community action. Data provided by the federal government reveal
that Quebec receives less than 15 per cent of the federal department
of agriculture's spending on research and development.
Does the agriculture minister believe, just like the defence
minister, that he cannot afford the luxury of treating Quebec
equitably? This is another good reason for Quebecers to vote yes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his
February 1994 budget speech the Minister of Finance stated:
``Fiscal reality requires that the government review its policy on
the funding of interest groups''.
In a letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of
Natural Resources agreed that grants should be given only to those
groups that provide important services to the Canadian public.
I give some of the results of this promise. Natural resources gave
a grant of $35,000 to the United States Department of Energy,
$5,000 to Sears, $70,000 to Superior Propane, $40,000 to the
Saskatchewan Trucking Association and $5,000 to the Omineca
Ski Club.
In total natural resources approved grants of $282 million.
Canadians are fed up with the Liberals buying favours with
taxpayers' money and this outrage must stop.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in the House to add the federal riding of Elgin-Norfolk to the
important debate on national unity. Recently I had the opportunity
to meet with a constituent of mine, Mr. Tom Savage of Port
Stanley, Ontario.
Mr. Savage, an artist, has created a national unity T-shirt. This
shirt truly represents all of Canada: a large red maple leaf with a
fleur de lys of Quebec and the sacred hoop of the First Nations.
In the wake of the crisis in both Ipperwash Beach and Gustafsen
Lake and the constant debate on the Quebec referendum, Mr.
Savage is one of many Canadians who feel Canada includes
Quebec and aboriginals.
It is frightening to envision the possibility of Canada's breaking
up and therefore I commend the work of Tom Savage and hope that
more Canadians step forward to voice their concerns. There is no
room for complacency. It is time for all Canadians who together
form our cultural mosaic to embrace our differences and stand
united. This will ensure a strong and prosperous future for all of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the separatist leaders spent much of last week
frightening seniors by claiming that, the day after a no vote in the
referendum, their pensions would be cut.
The federal government is being financially responsible by
reviewing all its programs to see how they may be made more
efficient and less costly. The PQ government and its separatist
allies, on the other hand, continue to promise the world ignoring
the fact that an independent Quebec will face a deficit of between
$7 billion and $15 billion in the first year.
Seniors, like the rest of the people in this country, prefer a
government that states its intentions clearly over one that
irresponsibly wastes money it does not have just to win its
referendum. Seniors will say no on October 30 to the campaign of
fear by the PQ and the Bloc.
15177
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some paradoxes in politics that cannot be
ignored. Last Sunday, like thousands of other Quebecers, I saw the
new Yes signs spring up in my riding.
Two of them in particular caught my attention. The first one
showed a nice big flower as the promise of a healthy environment.
The second one showed the peace sign which, in my opinion,
speaks for itself.
While separatists were busy putting up their signs, a horrible
drama was unfolding on the other side of the world as France set off
its second nuclear explosion.
(1410)
While the whole planet is mobilizing against these nuclear tests,
Quebec separatists remain silent to avoid endangering the support
France has promised them and continue to post their flower and
peace signs.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Senator Lise Bacon took offence at the treatment of
Standard Life chief executive Claude Garcia by the Quebec
government. Mr. Garcia became an instant celebrity at the start of
the referendum campaign when he said: ``We must not only win,
we must crush''. The Quebec government then remembered that
Standard Life had been awarded important contracts without
tenders and decided to issue a call for tenders, as should be done in
any case.
Instead of taking offence, Mrs. Bacon should feel stifled as part
of the No side, as Quebec businesspeople have been targeted by the
Operation Unity centre and blackmailed by the federal
government. Mrs. Bacon's principles are quite elastic. Why does
she not in turn denounce the unacceptable practices used by her
own side?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday it was discovered that two of the most notorious, violent
criminals in Calgary have been on parole for over a year after
serving seven of their twenty-two and twenty-nine year sentences.
Since the parole board gave them a second chance, one of them
is now back in custody for assaulting his girlfriend.
When the Reform Party asked for amendments to Bill C-45
which would make dangerous violent offenders like Jean-Luc
Dipietro and Oresto Panacui serve the full term for their original
sentence plus the full term for the offence they committed while on
parole, the Liberal government said no way and voted the
amendment down.
Jean-Luc Dipietro and Oresto Panacui did not deserve to be
released. Their criminal records include attempted murder,
kidnapping, escaping custody, robbery and family violence-prime
candidates for parole according to the parole board and the
government.
Bill C-45 was the government's opportunity to really get tough
on criminals but it refused to do it. The people of this country
deserve and demand better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chairperson of the Centrale de
l'enseignement du Québec, Lorraine Pagé, just sent a letter to
members of her union, asking them to support the Yes side and
make a financial contribution to the sovereignist campaign.
This invitation by the CEQ to subsidize the Yes side comes less
than one week after Bombardier was lambasted by Quebec's
separatists, including union leaders, for asking its employees to
support the No side.
It seems more and more obvious that an independent Quebec
will be a Quebec split in half, in that the right to freedom of speech
and freedom of association will only be granted to those who
support separatism and the PQ government. Quebecers do not want
that kind of a country and they will vote No.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian government has long recognized the need to provide
more help and support to young dropouts and unemployed.
Through the federal program for young trainees, 12 young people
from my riding of Saint-Denis are currently participating in a
training program that will teach them the job of inspector of
mechanical products.
Thanks to this initiative, these young people, whose future was
said to be bleak, have an opportunity to fully develop their
potential. Our government is proud to endorse this project, because
it meets the real needs of young Quebecers and Canadians by
helping the unemployed and the dropouts. Our young people need
this kind of initiatives, not a separatist dream which, quite
obviously, would be a dead end.
15178
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to the
citizens of the village of Maitland in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants.
At a ceremony last July Maitland was designated as Nova
Scotia's first heritage conservation district. This past Saturday
Maitland was again recognized, this time as the recipient of the
Elaine Burke award, an honour which recognizes community
achievement in active living and environmental citizenship.
The citizens of Maitland have shown both pride in their heritage
and a desire to build on their rich history in a positive and healthy
fashion. I believe this pride in community is representative of the
attitudes of people throughout my riding and indeed the province of
Nova Scotia.
(1415)
I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the village
of Maitland on this well-deserved recognition.
_____________________________________________
15178
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today it was reported in
La Presse that a secret document
was sent last March to the Privy Council's Operation Unity centre.
It seems that Industry Canada made a list of Quebec companies,
sector by sector, in anticipation of the referendum debate. Ottawa
identifies the levers-that is the word they used-it intends to use
to urge business people to campaign for the No side, referring to
various federal subsidies and contracts, especially in the aerospace
and defence sectors.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he approve
of the fact that a federal department, at the request of Operation
Unity, made a list of the heads of large corporation in Quebec for
the obvious purpose of blackmailing them and enrolling them on
the No side in the referendum campaign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is entirely normal that government officials
should be able to inform ministers and the government of economic
activities in Quebec that receive assistance from the Canadian
government. That is all part of the basic argument. The purpose is
not to blackmail anyone at all, in fact quite the opposite. It is so we
can tell people that they can get ahead in Canada and that many
industries in Quebec need the central government, to access its
funding programs as well as to find markets abroad.
I think it is perfectly normal that the Minister of Industry should
know what is going on in the industrial sector in the province of
Quebec at a time when a referendum is to be held, so that he can tell
the Prime Minister, the ministers, members of Parliament and the
public what the Canadian government is doing for Quebecers.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the government forgot to mention that these
documents include analyses of the political positions of certain
heads of corporations in connection with the current debate, hence
the importance of the use of the term ``levers'' in connection with
the way they will behave during the referendum debate.
Does the Prime Minister not think there is something indecent
about the fact that, when making this list of Quebec businesses, his
government referred not only to subsidies that had already been
paid under federal contracts but also to future subsidies that are
now being negotiated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it only makes sense for a minister to want to know
what is going on in his department. Members rise in the House
every day to ask questions, and if a minister has the misfortune to
say he does not know exactly what is going on in his department, he
is accused of incompetence. I am not going to rise in the House
now and tell my Minister of Industry that he is incompetent, when
he is making sure that we have all the information relevant to the
referendum debate in Quebec.
Quebecers ought to know that what we can offer them now is
something concrete, but the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois are trying to make people believe in a hypothetical
situation it will be impossible to realize. We are telling Quebecers
in concrete terms what we are doing for them, and they are very
glad to know about it.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what connection is there between a minister's jurisdiction
and the political opinions of the business people with whom he has
dealings? And why this excuse we are hearing today, that the
minister has to know what is going on in his department, when he is
much more concerned about the political views of the heads of
Quebec companies? I think it is pretty obvious that this is an
exercise in twisting the arms of business people in Quebec.
I ask the Prime Minister to admit that with this list, his
government has a tool to blackmail Quebec business leaders who,
as long as they are under the present federal system, will depend on
contracts and subsidies from Ottawa.
15179
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am of course glad to see the Leader of the Opposition has
conceded that the No side will win and the Yes side will lose. If he
felt confident, he would have said that all this did not matter and
that on October 30 they would no longer have dealings with the
Canadian government and businessmen would no longer have to
deal with the Canadian government. I wonder why he is so scared;
is it because he realizes he will lose?
However, I think it is rather surprising that the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois should criticize us, when his leader, the leader of the
Parti Quebecois, fired every single official representing the Quebec
government abroad who did not swear an oath of allegiance to the
cause of separation.
When we see the kind of threats they make against people who
are now speaking out in favour of the No side, as in the case of the
chief executive of an insurance company who has been told he may
lose his contracts because he is a federalist, I think the Leader of
the Opposition is hardly in a position to criticize us for trying to
find out who receives subsidies and in what sector, so that members
and people on the No side can go to the ridings and explain to
people that the Canadian government provides a good service to all
Quebecers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
well aware of how strongly allergic the Prime Minister was to the
competitive bidding process in the Power DirecTv case involving
his son-in-law. It will be remembered that he appeared to be
extremely allergic in that instance. But it is completely normal for
the government of Quebec to use a competitive bidding process.
It is also important for Quebecers to know the true colours of the
federal government right before making a decision. The Privy
Council's Operation Unity centre has taken the trouble to collect
information on Quebec businesses, their directors, their past and
future contracts and grants, so as to be able to pressure them to be
on the No side of the referendum. We know that a number of
federal government bodies and departments possess confidential
information on a number of Canadians and Canadian organizations.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether
some of the information in the hands of other federal bodies or
departments has been acquired by the Operation Unity centre to
create other files to be used for the same purposes as the first?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations of the hon. member for Roberval are
unfounded. The document produced examines the industrial
sectors in the province of Quebec, sector by sector. There are 20 or
21 in all. In each, we look at the economic situation and the effect
of federal government funding.
It also looks at what effect separation would have on each of the
industrial sectors in the province of Quebec, and in each case the
conclusion is clear: separation would have harmful economic
effects on the economic sectors of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's conclusion and the conclusions of his document are not
even the same. He has not read it. True, this document was
requested by the Prime Minister.
When the minister states that these are unfounded allegations, I
would like him to explain, to us and to all Quebecers, the
following. While the Operation Unity centre was literally
collecting secret information contained in Department of Industry
documents for the purposes of bringing pressure to bear during the
referendum, why would it have deprived itself of information held
by other organizations and departments other than Industry on
thousands of Quebecers and Quebec organizations? Why would it
not have done so when it has collected similar information from
Industry in such a shameful manner?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval continues to make
unfounded allegations which are not justified by the document. I
shall send him copies of the report on the various industrial sectors
in which the conclusion is that separation would be harmful for
Quebec. He will then see that this is the case in the majority of
sectors.
(1425)
When he says these are unnecessary documents, that is totally
ridiculous, and I do not hesitate to say so, because the conclusions
of the report clearly indicate the effects of separation on major
industrial sectors in Quebec, essential information for the
referendum. It comes as no surprise to me that the opposition has
not read it, because it does not fall in line with their conclusions,
but it is unfortunately the truth. Separation would be extremely
costly for most industrial sectors of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians learned that not only had
officials at the Department of National Defence been falsifying
documents but that former Airborne Commander Peter Kenward
ordered videotape evidence destroyed.
15180
Shortly after the destruction of the videotapes, Kenward was
promoted to full colonel. The minister has already admitted that
the chief of defence staff would not consider his reservations about
this promotion and he did not interfere because he says that the
promotion was a responsibility of the chief.
I want the minister to clarify his position. When did he learn that
Colonel Kenward had ordered the destruction of evidence? Was it
before or after the promotion?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a former
member of the armed forces, I am sure the hon. member will be
aware that following passage of the 1952 National Defence Act an
order in council was passed.
It is now found in Queen's Regulations and Orders 11.01(2). It
states:
The promotion of a member to any rank lower than that of brigadier-general
requires the approval of the Chief of Defence Staff.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knew that the evidence had been
destroyed. Therefore he is ``complicit'' in concealing that fact from
the Canadian people.
The minister knew of this cover-up. He knew of the promotion,
yet he did nothing. How can he justify this gross error of judgment?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from time to
time you caution hon. members about the language they use in the
House. I would caution the hon. member. If he said this outside the
House, it might be actionable.
Second, because of the reservations the chief of defence staff had
about the promotion and its delay pending certain investigations,
out of courtesy he brought it to my attention. When he brought it to
my attention, I expressed reservations that the promotion should go
ahead. I reminded the chief of the defence staff that it was his
responsibility to deal with these promotions and that it was up to
him to decide whether or not to proceed.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not the prerogative of anyone within the military
to impede an investigation and to destroy evidence.
Canadians are gravely concerned that the minister, who is
ultimately responsible, has allowed tampering with evidence as an
acceptable tool for office management at the senior levels of the
national defence department.
These revelations undermine public confidence in the military
and they destroy any shred of credibility still clinging to the
minister. My question does not touch on the Somalia inquiry but
goes right to the heart of the minister's mismanagement. Given
that the minister acknowledges to the Canadian people that his
department is out of control, will he do the honourable thing and
resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might ask the
hon. member if he would refrain from bordering on abusing the
privileges of the member of Parliament for Don Valley East and the
Minister of National Defence. I believe that is what he has done in
his question, when there is a close reading of the question.
I would like to tell him that the chief of defence staff will be
making a public statement this afternoon and will deal with all
these matters because they are under his purview.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he expects the
Minister of National Defence to have the governor in council
rescind an order in council that was passed 43 years ago designed
to prevent political interference in the promotion of officers of the
armed forces. Does he want to turn the clock back?
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
With respect to the aerospace industry, it is clear from the secret
document prepared by Industry Canada for the Operation Unity
centre that the federal government intends to use the defence
industry productivity program to put pressure on this industry in
Quebec by withholding funds earmarked for the support of new
projects in 1995.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the federal government is
currently negotiating with Bombardier to establish a financial
support program to help Bombardier sell regional jets?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, these are unfounded allegations. Clearly, whenever
subsidies are granted, the government always considers which
industries could use them and for what purpose. The stated
objectives are profitability and job creation, and these objectives
are those set by the federal government for industrial development
in Canada.
Is the opposition suggesting that we not look for ways to
stimulate employment in Quebec? The burden of proof rests with
opposition members. They are making allegations based on
incorrect information and faulty analysis. Instead, they should
share
15181
with us the burden of developing Quebec's economy as best we
can.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Obviously, Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not read the document.
Does the Prime Minister not find it odd that information on
negotiations between Bombardier and the government can be found
in an Operation Unity document designed to put pressure on
Quebec businesses to make them vote No?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ever since I became a member of cabinet and even a
member of Parliament, the Canadian aerospace industry has always
relied on federal assistance for its development.
I myself was Minister of Industry many years ago. When
Canadair was shut down by the American company General
Dynamics, the Canadian government took it over to put it back on
its feet. It has now become Quebec's largest industry and biggest
employer. The Canadian government wants to ensure that Canadair
can go ahead with its aircraft development project.
The development of regional aircraft by Canadair has been a
government concern for many years, and we are trying to help this
industry. In fact, in the past twelve months, we had the opportunity
to help it start producing this aircraft which I feel is destined to
have a great future, thanks to the aeronautics policies put in place
by the Canadian government, which does a great deal for workers
in that sector of Quebec's economy. That is why they will want to
remain in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister will not tell us when he will release his long
overdue reform of the Canada pension plan but perhaps he will
share with us what he is planning to do.
Through access to information we have obtained a briefing note
by a senior policy analyst in HRD. She states that the Canada
pension plan is financially unsustainable. She recommends that the
minister either cut seniors' pensions or raise taxes to pay for the
shortfall.
Will the minister promise seniors that he will not cut their
pensions? And, will he promise taxpayers that he will not raise
their taxes? Yes or no.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the hon.
member's representation to my colleague, the Minister of Finance,
which I know he will be thrilled to receive.
As far as the briefing note is concerned, it is very difficult to
keep track of a variety of briefing notes. I repeat to the hon.
member that we made it very clear in last year's budget that we
have a very strong commitment to maintaining the sustainability of
the pension programs for seniors. We recognize, however, as a
responsible government that in the future as the demographics of
the country change there has to be new financing for the Canada
pension plan. The Minister of Finance must meet with his
colleagues, the other ministers of finance, later this year to discuss
how that refinancing would take place.
(1435)
That is the reason why it is very important we engage in a serious
review of how we can ensure the continued maintenance of a good,
effective, sustainable pension program for Canadians.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge the hon. member's response and would like to
continue with a supplementary question.
Reform believes that pension reform can be done without cutting
seniors' pensions and without raising payroll taxes. In his letter last
week the chief actuary for finance recommended that the
government either raise taxes or cut benefits in order to save the
Canada pension plan.
Will the minister reject the advice of the chief actuary, refuse to
cut seniors' pensions and refuse to raise payroll taxes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in
receiving a more complete and thorough presentation from the
Reform Party on its proposals for the Canada pension plan.
When I looked at the proposals that came forward from the
seminar or meeting the Reform Party held a couple of weeks ago in
Halifax, I noticed that if we had followed its recommendations
there would have been substantial reduced pension benefits for
800,000 disabled Canadians, 600,000 widows and 1.8 million
pensioners.
I hope that is not the position of the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In a secret document prepared
by Industry Canada for the operation unity centre, we learn that
Bombardier asked Ottawa for funding, as part of the defence
industry productivity program, which, as Industry Canada itself
15182
indicated, would be difficult to provide. The assistance sought
concerned the joint Canadair-de Havilland global express airplane
project.
How does the Prime Minister justify a request for financial
assistance of this magnitude being in a strategy file intended for
use in pressuring business in the referendum debate?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I am going to have to explain this whole thing all
over again. The Department of Industry document sets out clearly
the position of the various industrial sectors. It indicates the effect
separation would have on these sectors. It also indicates, in some
cases, the amount of the financial assistance sought by certain
firms.
This is common practice, and one the government is familiar
with. Many companies follow this practice each year; that is, they
apply for funding. We have to respond to these applications for
assistance each year, and it is usual for this type of information to
appear in an Industry Canada document.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
impression we are not talking about the same document and that
the minister does not even have access to the document we are
talking about. Are we to understand that one of the new criteria
Ottawa has established for obtaining federal assistance under DIPP
is a favourable recommendation from the operation unity centre for
services rendered?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, clearly the answer is no. Government funding is provided,
once again, according to the contribution a firm or an industry
makes to the Quebec economy. It is provided on the basis of job
creation. It almost always is public and is therefore subject to the
government's public accounts.
This funding must be approved by the members of Parliament
and the House and is therefore granted objectively. Once again, the
opposition's allegations are unfounded.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
negotiations on the harmonization of environmental management
in Canada have been placed totally on hold. With each day the
environment minister's version of events gets even more
outlandish. She insists that Alberta scuttled the deal, but Alberta
says that the minister's fear of decentralization is to blame. What is
more disturbing is that Alberta's environment minister was
practically called a racist in the House.
(1440)
Why has the minister put this deal on hold and when will she
apologize to Alberta Minister Ty Lund for her inflammatory
comments?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I merely repeated in the
House what the minister said at the meeting in Haines Junction
when he said that he would be very happy if Canada had
environmental jurisdiction in Alberta in the area of parks, that we
could have their parks and their Indians. That comment has not
been refuted by the minister.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what is
more at issue here is the fact that these talks have been scuttled by
the minister, regardless of reason. Whether it is the Irving Whale or
whether it is the environmental harmonization agreement, the
minister is always looking for new ways to pass the buck, and
heaven help those who disagree with her. I am sure the Minister of
Natural Resources certainly knows what I am talking about. She is
in favour of the provinces and supports their attempts by her
sympathies with harmonization.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources or the Deputy Prime Minister. What do they plan to do
to get these talks back on track?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the claim of the hon.
member that somehow I have misrepresented what Ty Lund said is
absolutely false.
She got up on her first question and made a statement and I
answered that statement. I said that Mr. Lund has not denied
making the comment, which was heard by at least 10 people, to the
effect that Canada's role in environment in Alberta should be
restricted to national parks and their Indians.
I would suggest that the hon. member, rather than trying to find
another red herring, should stand in the House and apologize for
her claim that I misrepresented Ty Lund's remarks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
A secret document prepared by Industry Canada for Operation
Unity says that, without the federal defence contract for the
manufacture of ammunition, SNC-Lavalin subsidiary SNC-IT will
have to close its doors.
15183
Will the Prime Minister admit that linking the survival of a
business to the awarding of a federal contract in an effort to put
pressure on its leader amounts to blackmail?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are very close to being
unparliamentary. They do this because they have no arguments to
support their views.
Speaking of documents, our document is available under the
Access to Information Act. But what about the Le Hir studies, the
hidden studies? When the Parti Quebecois and its little brother, the
Bloc Quebecois, conduct studies that are inconsistent with their
conclusions, what do they do? The same thing they did with the
Georges Mathews and Bernier studies: they hide them.
In this case, the information is available. This information helps
us determine whether our subsidies can create jobs in Quebec. We
have the public interest at heart. But in their case, the question is
whether hiding the studies that are inconsistent with their
conclusions is in the interest of Quebecers who will vote on
October 30.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
we have answers that come not from an armchair quarterback but
from someone who is well briefed on the issue?
How can the Prime Minister let Operation Unity take 680
SNC-IT employees hostage by linking the awarding of a defence
contract for the manufacture of ammunition to the referendum
position of SNC bosses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegation is totally false, and everyone knows that
this industry is dependent on a Canadian government contract. That
is the way it is. This industry has been in existence since the end of
the second world war, since the war.
Of course, if the Canadian government does not buy ammunition
from an ammunition producer, I wonder who will.
(1445)
It is quite normal for us to know this. If, in analyzing Quebec
industries, the minister realizes that a business is completely
dependent on the Canadian defence budget, I think it is quite
normal for him to know this so that we can find out exactly what
role the Canadian government plays in Quebec. In this case, it is
fundamental.
Without the Canadian government, without a defence
department that buys ammunition from this industry, it would have
to close its doors. But, since there is a Canadian government that
has Quebecers' interests at heart, we continue to buy ammunition
from this business.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The subject of banning land mines was recently discussed at an
international conference in Vienna. In view of the fact that land
mines that are now being discovered in Bosnia have a similar
design and technology as those manufactured here in Canada, will
the minister give the House his assurance that no land mines are
now manufactured in Canada? More important, will he assure this
House that this technology has not been exported outside of our
borders?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can give this assurance to the hon. member. Indeed, I
have been informed that no such mines have been manufactured in
Canada since 1992. In fact, none have been allowed to be exported
since 1987.
I can give the member the assurance, since I am the minister and
am looking at all of these export permits, that I have not authorized
and will not authorize any of these exports.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1981 Tejinderpal Singh and four
accomplices attacked and hijacked an Indian airlines flight out of
Delhi and forced it to land in Pakistan. Tried and convicted for air
piracy in Pakistan, they received life sentences. After being
paroled, Singh made his way to Canada where he lied about his
background when he claimed refugee status. However, his true
identity was uncovered and he was arrested but has since been
released.
When in opposition the Liberals criticized the previous Tory
government for its handling of the Muhammad Issa Muhammad
case. I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will this
Liberal government handle the Tejinderpal Singh case differently?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate my hon.
friend, who was recently appointed as the critic for citizenship and
immigration. She will no doubt find it a very interesting portfolio. I
know we will miss her predecessor very much.
One of the matters before the government is to try to deal with
the subject matter in a fair and competent manner. This we will
ensure not only in this particular case but throughout the program.
If members look at some of the things we have tried to do in the
last year and a half with respect to the IRB, removals, and trying to
make the system much fairer and more competent, I think members
will agree that there have been improvements. However, that is not
15184
to suggest that this department or any other one is going to speak
from perfection.
I look forward to having her comments, her advice, and her
counsel along the way.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are nine other terrorists who were
convicted of hijacking Air India aeroplanes. All have been released
from prison in Pakistan and all are intent on coming to Canada.
Two other members of this group are presently in Canada.
With the new powers recently conveyed upon him, will the
minister assure this House that these convicted hijackers will be
removed from this country as expeditiously as possible?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will look to that new law to
provide us with any vehicles and tools with which to deal with
individuals who are undesirable, and, I might add, the same law
this party fought us tooth and nail on.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In its letter entitled
Business and Unity, the Privy Council urges the business
community to campaign for the No side. We also know from a
document submitted to the Minister of Labour that the Operation
Unity center's activities even include writing speeches for
politicians and other persons whose names were unfortunately
blanked out in the document.
(1450)
Does the Prime Minister confirm the news that the Operation
Unity center is also the organization in charge of preparing
speeches for certain members of the business community?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, clearly, our referendum strategy calls upon all resources
available to us in Quebec to try and convince Quebecers that it is in
their interest to vote No.
Now, I also read in La Presse what is happening. The CEQ, a
pro-sovereignty union, is sending letters to all its members asking
them to send money and to vote Yes. What is the difference
between that organization and a business that needs to create jobs
in a province and make profits and that realizes that its economic
viability is dependent upon Quebec being part of a larger entity,
namely Canada? Why should people who think it is in their best
interest to do so not fight for federalism, just as the CEQ has no
qualms soliciting money from its members and asking them to vote
Yes?
Clearly, what we are doing can be justified and is in the best
interests of Quebecers.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am grateful to the minister for finally admitting
something before this House. That is a first.
I would also like him to know that Ms. Pagé writes her own
speeches and that, when she writes to her members, she has been
given a mandate by the rank and file to do so. Perhaps he is the one
who wrote Mr. Garcia's speech. This remains to be confirmed in
another question.
What does the Prime Minister call it when a government agency
gathers information on business people, identifies ways of
pressuring some of them and goes as far as telling them what to
say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it is quite normal to ask for other people's input
when writing a speech. Information can be sought under the Access
to Information Act. Any citizen can request information from
government departments.
So, when a citizen contacts a department and says: ``I have a
speech to make. Can you provide me with some information?'' and
that information is available, it is in keeping with our government's
policy of openness to provide as much information as possible to
all citizens, and Quebecers in particular at this time when they are
about to make a decision that will affect their future for many years
to come. In order to make the right choice, they must be fully aware
of what the Government of Canada does for Quebec's industries,
greatly helping them to develop and break into new markets so that
jobs can be created for Quebecers within Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the investigator looking into allegations of sexual abuse at
the Lac Barriere Reserve was expected to present his report by
August 31. I have in my possession a work plan to confirm this
fact.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
tell the House if the written report is complete or when it will be
completed?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year there was an
allegation raised in the House by one of the Reform members of
sexual assault at Barriere Lake, which is an Algonquin reserve
northwest of Montreal. As a result, a memorandum of agreement
dated April 1995 was signed by Health Canada, the Province of
15185
Quebec Youth Protection Directorate, the band, and DIAND was a
fourth party but not a signatory.
A consultant came in from Winnipeg with a staff of five or six.
Quebec allocated two or three people. Workshops were done,
translations, healings. There were 14 to 19 recommendations. The
question is whether the report will be made public. The answer is
certainly. Certainly it will be made public. There will have to be
some protection, as the hon. member knows, because youth are
involved here. That was the full intent of the exercise.
(1455 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reserve is near Maniwaki and this study has had
$300,000 spent on it. That is my understanding.
The concern is that there be a written report made available to
the band members and to the public. Could the minister please
confirm that the written report will be made available, and will he
tell us when?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is consumed
with the second question. I believe I answered it in the first answer.
Some hon. members: When?
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here in Ontario the Harris
government has slashed funds for job creation programs.
Republicans in the U.S. have cut funding for their youth oriented
Americorps.
Can the Secretary of State for Training and Youth tell Canadians
specifically what action our government is taking to make sure our
young people remain a priority of this government?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our youth are the future of Canada
and they remain a priority of this government. In fact, this
government has increased funding by 7.9 per cent and has
earmarked $236 million for youth initiatives this year.
An early sign of success is that we exceeded estimates this
summer for employment. We helped over 220,000 young people
find jobs. That includes 40,000 jobs directly created by federal
initiatives.
In the United States it costs $22,000 U.S. per participant. In
Canada we do it for half of that; it is $10,000 per participant. We
are well on our way and we are very committed.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In its red book, the government pledged to develop a defence
industry conversion strategy. Two years later, we are still waiting
for that strategy and for a review of the defence industry
productivity program.
Are we to understand that the government did not follow through
on its commitment because, instead of meeting the real needs of the
industry, it is more concerned by the stand, on the referendum
issue, taken by business leaders in that sector? This is shameful.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the whole question of conversion of various defence
industries to peacetime purposes has been going on for some time.
The program the hon. member refers to is obviously a very
important one in Quebec. Over the years a rather major defence
industry has built up in that province and a lot of funds were
invested in the defence sector.
The challenge that is facing the industries in Quebec is the same
as that facing defence based industries anywhere else in Canada,
which is to make that conversion. The Minister of Industry has
indicated to my hon. friend on a number of occasions that we are
always looking forward to opportunities to be able to assist
industries in Quebec and elsewhere to make that conversion from
defence production to civilian purposes.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, grants
given to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
have risen sharply in recent years. In 1994-95 it was given $10,600,
but suddenly this year it received $262,000, an increase of 2,300
per cent.
Given that the Treasury Board is responsible for overseeing
millions of dollars worth of grants, can the minister explain the
sudden increase in money given to the AUCC?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all grants are examined in the framework of providing funds that
help in the education system in this case, or in whatever other
areas, to help Canadians and to do it in the most efficient and
effective manner. Each department takes on that responsibility. I
am sure that was done in this case and was fully examined when
these grants were made.
15186
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The 1995 budget proposed a $1.6 billion ex gratia payment to
offset the decline in farmland prices that would result from cutting
the Crow benefit. Later the minister made three basic changes to
that budget policy by deleting land seeded to forage crops, by
deciding to include renters, and by deciding that those renters
would pay income tax on their payments.
(1500 )
What was the rationale for these changes and how are these
decisions consistent with the original budget allocation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the references the hon. member
makes to later changes after the announcement in the budget are a
bit misplaced. All of the items he referred to were covered in our
budget documents and then covered very specifically in a series of
consultations I conducted with farm leaders across western Canada
in the months immediately following the budget.
We highlighted in the budget what the principal issues were but
we wanted to leave a window for consultation with farm leaders
and farm organizations to make sure we had the benefit of their best
advice in program design. Virtually every design decision we have
taken with respect to the $1.6 billion payment has been guided by
the very valuable input and advice of the leadership of western
farm organizations.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
My interest in Great Lakes pollution took a great leap forward
when I discovered it was causing decreased sexuality in males. My
question to the minister is simple. What is she doing to protect the
Great Lakes ecosystem and future generations of Adams?
The Speaker: I am not sure that relates to the specific functions
of the Minister of the Environment but I will permit her to answer.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to comment on the
nefarious effects of Great Lakes pollution on male sexual
reproduction. As a result of activities in the Great Lakes for the
first time we did manage to spot another endangered species-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: I mean an endangered species. The peregrine falcon
was found nesting in a couple of buildings in Toronto and
Hamilton.
We have also been specific in being able to delist Collingwood
as one of the 17 hot spots in Canada of the 43 areas of concern. We
have restored about 8 per cent of the beneficial uses and we have
been able to work on improvements at 17 sewage treatment plants.
Nine plants are moving to improve their phosphorous removal
capability.
I understand the hon. member's interest specifically in male
sexuality but I will tell him that with the clean-up of the Great
Lakes I think we start with herring gull eggs on up.
The Speaker: This concludes question period.
I have been given written notice of a question of privilege from
the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. I am
prepared to hear that now.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege
regarding the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member
for Elk Island.
Specifically the member was concerned that a lapel pin I was
wearing in the House was inappropriate.
The pin in question was nothing more than an insignia
encompassing the map of Canada, the Canadian flag and the
provincial flag of Quebec. Additionally the words ``One
Canada-uni et indivisible'' were on the pin.
Mr. Speaker, while I share your concern-
The Speaker: Let me understand. The hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville is raising a point of privilege
that arises out of a point of order. Is that correct?
Mr. Bhaduria: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: In the rules of the House, as far as I understand
them, we cannot raise a point of privilege out of a point of order.
Unless the member can find another vehicle for raising his point of
privilege I will move on to another matter.
>
15187
15187
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just before
question period I had commented on a number of groups and
associations that represent various minorities. They believe in the
bill. To them and to the employers who took part in the process the
bill combines our social and economic visions in a fair and
reasonable way.
Bill C-64 is a project for our entire society. It is based on
partnerships. It is based on reaching for our highest ideals and
turning them into a daily reality for all Canadians regardless of
heritage, gender or disability. It is based on our truest sense of self
as a people. Business, unions and designated groups agree we have
found a direction for equity that is consistent with the best features
of Canadian life.
The Business Council of British Columbia said during a recent
round of consultations: ``Employers alone cannot achieve
employment equity. Employers want to be part of the solution in
partnership with government, unions and employee
representatives, educational institutions and designated group
organizations''.
The council is right. I know when I leave this place I will be
pleased to know I helped with a piece of legislation that strengthens
our economy and our society. It is simply one more step toward the
kind of Canada we should all want to leave to our children and our
grandchildren.
[Translation]
In my introduction, I used a quote from the red book, and I will
conclude by doing the same.
``We hope to ensure equal opportunities, so as to provide a
decent standard of living to more Canadian families, as well as
dignity and respect, in a country where social harmony prevails''.
Equal opportunities for all. This is the Liberal Party's objective
for Canada. This objective is at the heart of our vision of what our
country should be.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to show how Canada is a leader when it comes to
employment equity.
Bill C-64 is a made in Canada legislative measure which meets
the specific needs of the workplace in our country.
I am proud to say that our government does not follow the
American trend of criticizing employment equity. We should not be
overly influenced by what goes on south of the border, since many
problems arising American law do not occur in Canada.
Given our history, our constitution and our social context, we do
not do things the way the Americans do. I should add that the
progress made so far tells us that we often make the right decisions.
(1510)
[English]
Let me offer this brief overview of the Employment Equity Act,
an act that is unique in the world. It is distinctly Canadian.
Our legislation is firmly grounded in this country's Constitution.
In Canada every individual has the right to equality before and
under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law.
As we have said in the red book, the Liberal Party plan for
Canada, we want a country where we all see ourselves as
contributors and participants, not liabilities and dependants. We are
committed to a Canada characterized by integrity, compassion and
competence.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that
special consideration and the accommodation of differences are
necessary to realize true equality under the law. Different treatment
is not a departure from equality. It is essential however to achieve
it.
The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide
Mercredi, explained it well when he told the Standing Committee
on Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons: ``I think
sometimes people, white people in particular, forget that this is
their society and it is not easy for others to get into it''.
This legislation is designed precisely to build bridges between
potential and opportunity.
[Translation]
In Canada, employment equity is proactive and positive. It is
intended to prevent discrimination. It is designed to eliminate
obstacles to employment for disadvantaged Canadians, through
intelligent management of human resources making it easier for the
new labour force of the 21st century to enter the job market.
Our legislation encourages consultation between employers and
workers to find solutions for problems arising at the workplace.
Our approach is based on conciliation rather than use of the
courts, because this is the Canadian approach. The aim of the
federal government is to educate and help employers by creating
15188
employment opportunities enjoyed by all members of the labour
force for members of designated groups.
[English]
Another central feature of our system is our firm belief in
flexible targets businesses can reasonably achieve. In both our
original Employment Equity Act and in the current bill to replace it
we have purposely sought the views of employers, unions and
members of the designated groups.
We have listened and learned, recognizing we must strike the
right balance, ensuring the law will not solve one set of problems
for employees by creating another problem for employers.
That is why Bill C-64 has been specifically designed to
minimize the regulatory burden. It also makes programs more cost
effective and enforcement measures much more efficient.
The bonus for Canadian companies is when everyone's best
interests are served there is a direct improvement to the bottom
line.
[Translation]
In fact, employment equity is not hard to sell. According to the
Business Council of British Columbia in its testimony before the
standing committee studying Bill C-64, the four designated groups
make up 60 per cent of Canada's population. As employment
equity programs are implemented, it went on to say, the labour
force will better reflect the diversity of the Canadian people with
all the social and economic advantages this comprises. Our
experience with employment equity proves that, when a solution is
practical for business and protects human dignity, everyone
benefits.
(1515)
Employment equity helps fill the gaps in our economic
development and therefore it strengthens our economy as a whole.
[English]
The newspapers are full of stories about business executives
extolling the virtues of employment equity. For example, Dan
Branda, chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Canada told a
Globe and Mail reporter that diversity:
-is an absolute business imperative because it gives us the edge in attracting
the best and the brightest people. It positions us as an employer of choice and
will help us in competing in a market that is becoming increasing diverse and
global.
The chief executive officer of the Canadian Occidental
Petroleum, Bernard Isautier said:
Diversity is a source of competitive advantage. Canada is a country with a
respect for differences, for different cultures, for different opinions and respect in
general for the individual. That makes Canadians particularly well received when
they deal with foreign countries. I think Canada should capitalize more on these
capacities.
No one would agree more than the young woman who is able to
pursue a career in the trades, the young aboriginal student who sees
his post-secondary studies lead to full employment in industry, the
Asian engineer who is able to use her skills to improve production
processes to make a firm more competitive or the disabled adult
who gains financial and social independence, enjoying the dignity
and security that comes with a salary.
This legislation is a recommitment of the government to equality
for all Canadians. With Bill C-64 we are continuing our tradition of
international leadership in the area of employment equity, while
choosing to lead rather than be led. In these changing times,
assuming our responsibility is making the most of the opportunities
that change represents. In the process, we are creating a more
united nation and building a more innovative economy.
Most of all, we are putting into practice the very values that
make each of us so proud to be a Canadian: fairness, justice and
equality for all.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will
also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17.
We are now going to Group No. 2, without Motion No. 3. Miss
Grey, seconded by Mr. White moves that Bill C-64, in clause 4 be
amended by replacing line 10, on page 4, with the following: ``(3)
Members of''.
(1520 )
In view of the fact that the member whose motion this was to
have been is not present in the House for whatever reason, we will
now proceed to group three.
15189
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) 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;''.
He said: 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.
Ms. Clancy: Wrong, absolutely wrong.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): 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.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the fears
and misconceptions which the Reform Party member is taking
advantage of in this motion on best qualified.
These are anxious times for many Canadians. The economy,
while improving, is no longer as assured as it once was. Jobs are
not as permanent as once expected. Canada's labour force has
experienced swings as traditional industries shed workers, while
new ones arise with different skill needs. There is a sense that the
economic pie is not growing as much as we would like it to.
(1525)
The government understands that families face social pressures
that were largely absent a generation ago. Young people grow up
surrounded by issues from which they cannot be sheltered. There is
a sense that our society is more troubled than it once was.
The federal government is pursuing an agenda that is addressing
those issues. However, we recognize that there are a lot of ways
that people respond to those different kinds of uncertainty. One is
backlash against people who are perceived as part of the problem.
Any groups that are seen to be by some as pushing for too much or
getting an undeserved share of too limited resources face an angry
response.
I think this is the real motivation behind the Reform Party's
introduction of this motion on best qualified.
However, the truth is often far different than those stories would
indicate. Unfortunately, lots of people are having trouble finding
good work. In fact, people from the designated groups under
employment equity are more likely to experience those problems
that other persons.
Employment equity is not about preferential treatment. The
simple fact is that Bill C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an
unqualified person. It is quite explicit on that point.
Let me quote Mona Katawne of Manitoba Telephone System
who testified before the standing committee. She said:
There is no evidence that hiring from among the designated group members
is a lowering of qualifications; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. There are
people from the designated groups who are both available to work and qualified
to work.
The fact is that our economy has surpluses of highly qualified
people from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out
there.
However, this myth of preferential treatment persists because of
misinformation. A perfect example is the Gallup poll that appeared
in the December 23, 1993 Toronto Star. The headlines blared that
74 per cent oppose job equity programs. Let us take a look at the
actual question. What was the question? It was:
Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more women and
minority group members for management positions, or should government take
no action whatsoever and hire new employees based solely on their
qualifications?
With such a question the response was what the headlines blared.
The question unfairly forced people to choose between actively
attempting to hire more women and minority group members and
hiring based on qualifications. I am not surprised that 74 per cent,
when asked such a question, chose qualifications.
15190
Employment equity means broadening access to all qualified
people. It means giving people the chance to become better
qualified.
On virtually any scale, people in the designated groups fare
poorly in today's labour market. I want to underscore that point.
There are still barriers to full participation by members of the
designated groups. The goal of this legislation is to end those
barriers, not to create a new discrimination against someone else. It
is to end those barriers.
Let us look at one specific group that fares especially poorly in
our labour market and that is people with disabilities. Only about
60 per cent of adults with disabilities are in the labour market at all.
They have unemployment rates that are almost double the national
average and that costs us all as Canadians.
The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study
that looked at people with mental disabilities. They calculated the
loss to our economy of large scale segregation of these people from
our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to unemployment,
social assistance costs and lost consumption. They found that the
cost to Canada's economy of keeping these people out of society in
many ways is about $4.6 billion a year.
(1530)
We must reject those attacks on employment equity and defeat
the motion. It is important that those of us who come here
responsibly realize and recognize the demands of society, the
demands that are before us, and do what Canadians expect of all of
us in the House. They expect us to be caring, compassionate,
responsible individuals ready to meet the needs of society, ready to
ensure that equity and equality exist in society.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the motion put
forward by the hon. member to amend clause 6.
Let me say at the outset that clause 6 was included in the bill to
dispel certain myths about employment equity. One such myth is
that employment equity means hiring unqualified people.
According to this myth employment equity requires employers to
lower their standards and change their job requirements to
accommodate inferior candidates.
This notion is absolutely false. It is pure nonsense. It is the
complete misunderstanding of what employment equity is about
and it is extremely degrading to members of designated groups.
We have included clause 6 in the bill to make it perfectly clear to
everyone, so there can be no mistake. However the change
proposed by the hon. member is unacceptable. Although it adds
nothing of substance to the bill, it creates a host of additional
problems by including the new notion of best qualified.
The first problem is obvious. What does best qualified mean?
How do we determine best? Best according to whose definition? I
do not deny that sometimes it may be possible to establish a very
sophisticated, completely objective method to determine a best
candidate, but too often best simply ends up meaning someone just
like me. In these situations best becomes another excuse to create
barriers. We do not need more barriers.
Who was best? Is the candidate with the most university degrees
always the best? Let us say we are talking about hiring a cook or a
manual labourer. Book learning is not the main qualification for the
job. Obviously skill is. Is the candidate with a master's degree in
law better qualified than the high school graduate, even though the
degree has nothing to do with the job at all? Or, have we created
just another barrier? I repeat that we do not need more barriers.
The government stands firm about employment equity. It does
not require any employer to hire unqualified individuals. However
it asks employers to look actively for qualified applicants in places
they might not have previously looked. It asks them to find
qualified workers in designated groups that have been overlooked
and consider them along with other qualified candidates. It asks
them to eliminate barriers in these processes, but it does not dictate
the outcome of the hiring and the promotion decision. It certainly
never asks them to hire someone who is not qualified.
Sometimes certain employers go further. Sometimes a big
hearted employer will find and train people who have not had a
chance. They will see to it that these people become qualified. Let
us make no mistake. These employers do not have to do it. The law
does not require it. However they find it brings their companies
unexpected benefits.
I will tell a story about one such employer. Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, a crown corporation, recently instituted a
special pilot program for four young people with intellectual
disabilities. Three of the four have Down's syndrome. These four
individuals were carefully trained for the company for temporary
photocopying, filing and messenger jobs. They were always
willing and co-operative. They were extremely proud of their new
found independence and their success in this work. Their families
were grateful that the responsibility for their children was being
shared.
(1535 )
It is most interesting that although the four people required extra
supervision they unexpectedly brought much happiness and
compassion into the workplace. Though their lot in life was
different they never complained. Their happiness and gratitude
were contagious. They caused very beautiful qualities to blossom
in their fellow workers who were touched and inspired by their
innocence, simplicity and gratitude.
15191
These four individuals brought a great deal of joy to the
workplace. The project's participants, supervisors and workers
received one of CMHC president's excellence awards in 1994.
Though they may not have been the best qualified for the job
according to traditional standards, they performed their job with
enthusiasm and in doing it brought something special to the
workplace. They made it a better workplace for everyone.
Sometimes the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. In
looking for excellence we sometimes find it in the most unexpected
places. We sometimes achieve it in the most unexpected ways. This
is one lesson of employment equity. I would not want to tie in any
way the hands of an employer who wants to undertake an
innovative program such as the one at CMHC.
I frankly do not know what the full impact of including best
qualified in this section might be. I fear, however, that it would
ultimately constrain the efforts of employers who will look for best
in new areas and for best in the sum total of the parts. For these
reasons I cannot support the motion.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to follow on the hon. member's comments
with respect to the word best and the concept of best qualified
which Reform is seeking to introduce into the legislation. It strikes
me that it could have a twist, an irony of resulting in imposing on
the private sector a ridiculous standard. The word best is very hard
to define. The prior speaker indicated that he thought the language
itself was problematic.
If we use the term best qualified then we would have to look
somewhere for a definition of it. I briefly looked in the Oxford
dictionary and it states that the word best can be an adjective, a
noun or an adverb. It is defined as follows: ``excelling all others,
inherent or relative to some standard, the most appropriate,
advantageous, desirable, or in a person, the kindest, the greatest in
size or quantity'', and so on.
I wonder how the Reform Party will explain that kind of an
imposition of regulation on the private sector. Which of those
definitions should we choose? Are we asking employers to hire the
biggest person, the kindest person, the most appropriate person? If
the job involves answering the telephone, do we need a Ph.D. in
communications, or would a graduate certificate from a business
college suffice? Could we use someone who has a physical
disability to answer the telephone?
My view and the view of many people on this side of the House
is that the imposition of the term best qualified is ridiculous in this
context. How can we legislate a definition of best, a word that
could have different grammatical forms?
All this goes back to the fundamental Reform position which is
absurd in my view. Government is not here to create barriers.
Government sometimes has to act to take away the barriers, to
intervene on behalf of our citizens to remove barriers in different
situations: barriers in the legal system and barriers in employment.
Reform has stated today: ``The only criteria on which people
should be hired or promoted is merit. Anything else is
discrimination''.
(1540 )
Testosterone levels are a little high on the Reform benches today.
The concept of discrimination is dealt with under the Canadian
Human Rights Act. If Reformers would bother to read that act, they
would see that their definition of discrimination does not hold
water.
The Canadian Human Rights Act specifically allows special
programs designed to reduce the disadvantage suffered by groups
or individuals when those disadvantages are based on race, national
or ethnic origin, sex, disability and other characteristics such as
accidents of one's birth or accidents of one's life. These programs
are allowed under that statute and under the Constitution of
Canada.
I know it upsets them to mention the charter of rights and
freedoms because they do not like it. However I would like to draw
the attention of hon. members to the law of the land, section 15(2)
of the charter which deals with the right to equality before and
under the law and to equal protection and benefit for all
individuals.
Subsection 15(2) of the charter states:
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups
including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
That is part of the country's Constitution. It means that equality
means more than just treating everyone identically. It means that
equality also requires special measures and the accommodation of
differences. That is what employment equity seeks to do, to
achieve equality in the workplace through the accommodation of
differences, through the elimination of barriers, through outreach
recruiting programs, but not through hiring the unqualified. This is
not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.
We fully support hiring on the basis of merit. Nobody is
disputing that point. However Reformers have created a strawman.
They call it discrimination. They set it up and then they knock it
down.
That is why section 6 is included in the act. Section 6 is there
because employment equity does not require any employer to hire
someone who is unqualified. That is what section 6 does.
How much clearer can we be? Reform repeatedly insists on
raising this spectre. I want to be perfectly clear that employment
equity is by no stretch of the imagination discrimination. It is
perfectly compatible with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Reform members
15192
object then we should let their objection be against the foundations
of the country and not against the employment equity act.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have heard Reform members say that we should be hiring on the
basis of merit. That is what the legislation is all about. It is what it
has been all about for over eight years now.
It is about getting rid of barriers in the system that have
prevented people from being hired, from being promoted, from
being given job opportunity regardless of merit. Colour of their
skin, aboriginal origin, disability and gender have all acted against
people of merit and kept them from getting jobs. That is exactly
what the legislation is about.
We disagree that the Reform Party does not want to accept the
reality of life for over 60 per cent of Canadians who have not been
given opportunity, despite their merit, despite their ability, despite
the contribution they have to make. The legislation and the
pre-existing employment equity act are all about making merit and
only merit the criteria on which hiring takes place.
I welcome the motion. It gives me an opportunity to clarify what
the bill tries to do. It is an employment equity act. It is not an
employment preference act. It is about creating equality in the
workplace. It is about fairness. It is about removing employment
barriers which blind us to the merit of individuals to provide all
with the opportunity to compete fairly for jobs. It is about hiring
qualified people to do the job, not only those who fit an image that
for a long time we as a society and managers in our society have
seen as the kind of person most likely to succeed.
(1545)
Let me read what Bill C-64 says in this regard. The bill states
that the obligation to implement employment equity does not
require an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons. That is
very clear, notwithstanding the comments that have been made
about employment equity requiring somebody to hire somebody
just because they are female or are black or Oriental or aboriginal
or just because they use a wheelchair.
Members can refer to the existing paragraph 6(b) for
confirmation. We want to create a level playing field for all
workers. That is why we insist on the equal consideration of all
qualified applicants. We believe that every individual, regardless of
race, gender, or disability, must have a fair opportunity to prove his
or her abilities and be given a fair chance to contribute to the
Canadian workplace.
For far too long a large segment of our society has not been
allowed to contribute to the Canadian economy the abilities they
have. As we face an increasingly competitive global marketplace,
we cannot afford not to use the full talents of all our people.
Bill C-64 is not about dictating to employers the result of an
individual recruitment decision. It is about encouraging employers
to assess their entire approach to employment, to make sure they do
not either consciously or inadvertently create barriers to capable
job candidates. Let me repeat that: capable job candidates.
There is no doubt that those barriers do exist. I believe my hon.
colleague underestimates the prevalence of systemic although
unconscious discrimination in the workplace. It is as insidious as it
is invisible. Countless well qualified men and women members of
the designated groups have not obtained positions or promotions
because of their race, their physical attributes, or their gender. To
dispute this is to deny mountains of reports that consistently paint a
picture of workplace injustice. To deny this is to deny the real daily
and painful experience and frustration of millions of Canadians
who are not allowed to contribute up to their ability.
Systemic discrimination is no longer acceptable. With this
legislation we are encouraging employers to create the conditions
in which no segment of the population will be discriminated
against or excluded in job competitions. Only in this way can we be
assured that those selected will be the most capable of doing the
task.
I hope my hon. colleague understands that this bill establishes a
floor, a foundation from which employers can build a more
equitable and representative workforce. They can only do that by
getting rid of barriers that have kept women, people of colour,
aboriginal people, and people with disabilities largely in the lowest
paying jobs.
The point of the act is not to tell employers how to go about the
details of their business. This House is not interested in the
micro-management of the affairs of business. Employers have
made it clear that they do not need nor want the hand of
government in their internal operations. That is why this
amendment is so out of place. The impact of the Reform Party's
amendment would be to get into the business of telling companies
how to run their businesses.
Best by whose definition? Best by the definition that has taken
the category of clerks in the public service, the lowest paid and
probably the least qualified in many cases. Eighty-five per cent of
them are women. But in the top ranks of that lowest category, guess
who rises? It is not the women, who are 84 per cent of the
employees, but the men.
(1550)
We have had employment equity not by legislation but by policy
in the federal government for over a decade. Still barely 18 per cent
of our management category are women.
15193
Maybe Reform Party members would like to make the argument
that women are inherently less qualified and that is why they have
not risen to the top. Well, I would love to see them try to justify
that argument.
Maybe they have not read the reports that say that equally or
better qualified black males in the country earn up to 20 per cent
less than white males. Maybe they have not seen the reports that
document how the disabled are kept out of employment and if they
do get employment it is often temporary, short term, and low paid.
Maybe Reform members want preferential treatment for less
than half of our population to continue. Maybe they do not want
everybody to have an equal opportunity. Well, this government
does. We believe that we have an extremely talented population
and it is going to be essential to our competitiveness that we use
every bit of talent this country possesses. We have to get rid of the
blinkers and blinders that have kept both government and the
private sector from giving opportunities to people based solely on
their merit. We have to get rid of the perception of gender that says
women cannot do certain kinds of jobs, or certainly cannot do them
as well as men.
I do not know a man who is competent or capable who is not
prepared to compete on an equal playing field with any woman in
Canadian society. Those who want to continue preferential
treatment must have something to fear, and they all seem to be
concentrated in the Reform Party.
This country has prided itself on equality of opportunity. This is
another step forward in equality of opportunity. The Reform Party
keeps referring to social engineering. Well, it is social engineering
when 90 per cent of those who rise to the top represent less than
half of the population. That is social engineering. It is
unconscionable. It is a waste of the talents and energy of the
majority of the Canadian population.
No, I do not have all the answers. But I do know that I do not
want to walk into the banks of this country and tell them very
precisely that they must hire only the best qualified, which then
government would be constrained to define in the legislation so
they could apply my definition to every single hiring process,
which happens by the hundreds of thousands in the banks of this
country every year. No, I do not want to operate that way. Yet that is
the way the amendment from the Reform Party would have us
operate.
I urge the House to reject the amendment and I urge us to get on
with the business of hiring people in the country based on merit and
not on their gender, race, disability, or aboriginal origin.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to speak on the bill and maybe share with my
colleagues some of my own experiences in this area.
I can tell the House that Bill C-64 is very progressive because it
is the way corporations and large businesses are going. As a
member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, we adopted a
theme and a vision for the corporation that the workforce of the
corporation should reflect the community it serves.
The bankers have said it is the right way to go. Let me read to the
House what the Canadian bankers have stated on employment
equity: ``It has stimulated fundamental reviews and enhancement
in the bank's human resource policies and practices, which have
benefited everyone. It has helped us lay the foundation for
managing an increasingly diverse workforce, something every
employer of choice in the 1990s wants to do well.''
(1555)
Whether it is West Coast Energy, the banks, or any other
corporation, they have recognized that the future workforce is
going to be diverse. They have to plan for that diverse workforce.
They have to ensure that the future workforce has the skills.
Employment equity takes the barriers down. It takes away those
barriers that do exist. And they do exist.
I remember when I was about 18 years old I used to work in a
sawmill at Crown Zellerbach. I noticed that out of a very large
workforce of 2,000 to 2,500 it did not reflect what every other
sawmill reflected. It came to my attention that the personnel
manager at that time was discriminating. He was discriminating
against hiring visible minorities.
I had a job there. I got a job and I could have said I have my job, I
do not have to worry about this. But it did not reflect the
community. People who would apply there from visible minority
groups and who had the qualifications would not get hired.
I remember I was 18 years old and I made an appointment with
the vice-president of the corporation. I went there and said he had a
personnel manager who discriminates against certain groups and is
not hiring them. Of course they were very defensive and said that it
was not true, but in fact it was true. It was true.
Even though the vice-president of the corporation at that time
did not admit that, the personnel manager was let go. Lo and
behold, over the next two or three years we saw quite a different
hiring procedure, quite a different way in which people were hired.
There are barriers all the time. There are barriers against the
disabled. I know that. My own father unfortunately lost his vision
around 22 or 23 years ago, when he was a young man of 40. When
that happens to someone who is close to you, you realize the
barriers that exist to them, the barriers of their daily life, never
15194
mind the barriers of trying to get employment, trying to make sure
that you are fulfilling your daily life, the things we take for granted.
This employment equity bill recognizes that barriers exist
against certain groups. We want to have a plan to reduce those
barriers, just as we do in this House. We want to ensure for example
that more women are represented in the House. Is it wrong to plan
to do things in a better way to improve their representation in the
House? Is that wrong? That is right.
There are ways we can do things to take away those barriers, to
reduce those barriers. That is what the employment equity bill is all
about. It recognizes that barriers exist and that we want both in the
public sector and in the private sector to lay out a plan. Maybe it is
their hiring procedure. They have to look at how they hire.
For example, the aboriginal community has been left out, and we
have to work hard to include them. Look at the social problems in
the aboriginal community. I have gone through the streets of
Vancouver with a policeman and walked through some of the most
difficult areas there. We know that we have neglected our job, that
we have not done it, because we see so many of them with drug and
alcohol problems, with tremendous social problems. They have
been left out. They have not been able to participate in the benefits
and in the economy.
First we must recognize that those barriers exist. All of this is a
plan to see how we can tear down those barriers, reduce those
barriers by saying we are not doing things the right way. Maybe we
are not hiring in the right way. Maybe we are not planning, maybe
we are not training. All of these things are very important.
It is also beneficial and profitable for the corporation. As
someone who was an employer, I know how important it is to make
sure you have a diverse workforce, because in the global economy
that diverse workforce will be a great advantage to you. It will
provide new sources of energy, different ways of looking at things,
and it will open doors when we trade in the international
community and in the global economy. We have to recognize that
as an asset. We have to recognize that our diverse population is a
tremendous asset. We have to recognize that in all our corporations
and companies the diverse population should be reflected in those
institutions and in our private sector corporations.
(1600)
This is an excellent bill. When the members of the Reform really
have a good look at this bill they will support it. It will make sure
we do things better, that we include people, that we make sure we
have a good reflection of what this country is all about in all our
institutions, in our private corporations as well as our public
corporations.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 78, the recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now turn to Group No. 4, Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-64, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 27, on page
10, with the following:
``(b) the preparation of the employer's employment equity plan.
(2) Where the employees are represented by a bargaining agent, the
bargaining agent shall participate in a consultation under subsection (1).
(3) A consultation under subsection (1) is not a form of co-management.
(4) The employer and its employees' representatives must implement and
revise the employment equity plan jointly.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that this is one of the
best motions you will see during your career, and I am rather
confident at this point that even the government will support it.
We spent a lot of time reviewing Bill C-64, which was referred to
our committee at second reading. This motion essentially provides
that employment equity must be based on a joint effort, so as to
ensure that it is effective and that the prescribed objectives will be
reflected in the workplace.
Any organization that has been successful in promoting
employment equity has managed to do so because the employer's
and the employees' representatives got together and agreed on
certain objectives.
This amendment seeks to ensure that employees' representatives
can participate in the preparation and implementation of the
employment equity plan. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois is very
much in favour of employment equity.
15195
The problem that we found when we reviewed this bill, and the
parliamentary secretary should pay attention since his support
would be helpful, is that there is no clear provision to ensure that
workers will be involved in the implementation of the plan.
The bill only includes a rather vague provision on the
implementation of employment equity plans, and the parliamentary
secretary cannot pretend to ignore the fact that the clause did not
receive much support.
Indeed, the parliamentary secretary surely remembers that, when
union officials appeared before the committee, they expressed a
great deal of concern about clauses 14 and 15 dealing with the
consultation process. Clause 15 refers to a consultation, but it does
so in general terms; there is no mandatory or compulsory process.
(1605)
It is very important to understand the purpose of the amendment,
and I think the Reform Party will agree that an employment equity
policy is not feasible without the consent of all parties within a
company.
That is definitely the purpose of this amendment. Companies
and workers even came to see us to compare notes. They told us
that in the Canada Labour Code, a provision required the policy on
sexual harassment to be posted. What kind of action or measures
should be part of an employer's policy against sexual harassment?
A number of unions came to see us and said that ideally, to promote
employment equity each employee should receive the employment
equity plan. The plan would be available in the company and be
posted in public rooms and areas.
We can never stress enough the importance of consultation and
consensus in achieving this goal. We were and still are afraid that if
we as parliamentarians, if the House of Commons does not adopt
this amendment, the bill will again suffer a degree of imbalance
and there would be a definite bias towards the employer and a
tendency to be less forthcoming to the representatives of the
workers.
I may recall that this bill will make the Canadian Human Rights
Commission responsible for monitoring employment equity. In
case of violations of this legislation, the commission may establish
an employment equity review tribunal.
This is a major innovation. Unfortunately, the tribunal will not
include labour representatives. What also bothers us in this bill is
that because there will be an employment equity review tribunal
consisting of three people, there will be no right of appeal. This is
quite a decision, and I see Mr. Speaker, that you share my
reservations and that is your social conscience speaking out.
My point is that there are few instances under our justice system
when there is no right of appeal. In most cases, whether we are
talking about criminal law or an administrative tribunal, it is a
foregone conclusion, and the hon. member for Lotbinière is aware
of this, that the person who appears before a tribunal always has the
possibility of launching an appeal.
In this case, there is a clear imbalance which the amendments of
the Bloc Quebecois are meant to correct, and I am confident that
the government majority will support this view. As for the Reform
Party, knowing what they are like, I never felt very confident about
their support.
It would be very interesting at this time, for continuation of the
debate, if the parliamentary secretary would rise and agree with me
that the bill would be improved by acceptance of the Bloc
Quebecois amendments, which I would remind you would ensure
that negotiating agents, if present in a company, would be involved
in more than just the drafting process, through the employer's
possibility of consulting them. These consultations however are
often optional rather than mandatory.
With our amendments, there would be an obligation not only to
consult the workers' representatives, the negotiating agents, but
also to involve them in the implementation process. Consultation is
equally important during implementation, when an employment
equity plan has been agreed upon, as it often has to be lived with for
two, three or four years. There may be staff turnover, but the basic
objectives remain.
(1610)
We on this side of the House are of the belief that the way to
meet the objectives and to ensure that the plan is what both
management and labour want is to require the employer's
representative, who may make his views known in a tribunal
specifically designed for that purpose, to remedy any existing
imbalance, and to ensure not only that workers and their
representatives are consulted on an optional basis, but rather that
their participation in the implementation process is mandatory.
As you know, the implementation process is, in concrete terms,
the way the objectives will be met after concrete agreement on an
employment equity program is reached. This is something no
legislator can put into the wording of a statute, because it is part of
the internal dynamics of a company. It is a bit like a marriage
contract. You may well say: ``Who does he think he is, talking of
marriage?''
But you would be wrong in that, Mr. Speaker, because I have
many examples around me of what marriage is, and I know that
marriage is a matter of trust. It is a matter of an undertaking
15196
between two individuals, whether of the same sex or of opposite
sexes, who have chosen to forge a link of trust. For employment
equity to be a viable entity, for it to be realistic, there must be trust
and understanding involving all parties concerned. And by all
parties concerned I mean of course the negotiating agents, if
present in the company, and the representatives of the employer.
I would be extremely disappointed-having invested a great deal
of energy, working hard on the committee, as the government is
well aware, the parliamentary secretary as well-extremely
disappointed if ever these amendments were struck down. I must
admit that my confidence in this government would be seriously
compromised in future if that happened.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to express our reservations concerning the amendment
presented by my colleague. Like my colleagues I do, however,
appreciate what my colleague and his party, the Bloc Quebecois,
are attempting to do with a view to improving Bill C-64.
Examining the motion, I find it goes a bit too far. Its intentions
are probably honourable, but if we look at it in detail, the
amendment is not practical. What is being proposed in this
amendment is to create a prerequisite that both groups, employers
and employees, establish equity plans.
[English]
This proposed change to the legislation would create a
requirement for employer and employee representatives to
implement and revise employment equity plans jointly.
I can appreciate that my colleagues believe it is essential to have
labour input for the planning and application of employment equity
in the workplace. I assure them that within the existing legislation
provisions have been made to ensure there will be consultation and
collaboration between the parties in the preparation,
implementation and revisions of companies' employment equity
plans.
The bill was amended by the standing committee as a result of
input from the Bloc Quebecois. It was the previous speaker who
encouraged the committee to include this provision.
Clause 15 of Bill C-64 acknowledges that collaboration between
management and labour is necessary if changes sought by
employment equity are to come about. It signals that success in
achieving an employment equity workforce requires the active
collaboration of labour and employers to eliminate artificial
barriers to members of the designated groups. However, we must
not confuse representation with responsibility. Collaboration is not
co-management for very good reasons.
If implemented this amendment could seriously compromise the
prerogatives of management to implement employment equity at
the work site as it sees fit.
(1615 )
The employer must have the final say over the way employment
equity affects the workplace because it is ultimately the employer
who is legally responsible for the act's implementation. Only
management is accountable for meeting the obligations set out in
this legislation. It would be patently unfair to impose that
responsibility on management if it was forced to share all decision
making with its employee representatives.
There are several other good reasons why this motion must be
defeated. Among them is the fact that the proposed amendment
would only preserve the co-management limitations for the initial
preparation of an employment equity plan. This provision would be
removed for the implementation and revision phases of the
employment equity plans. Further and perhaps of greatest
consequence, the amendment could lead to a requirement for
negotiation between labour and management rather than a
consultation.
I can assure the House that we are not prepared to see
employment equity used as a bargaining chip in contract talks and
negotiations. A bargaining agent might refuse to co-operate,
perhaps motivated by reasons that have absolutely nothing to do
with the goals of employment equity and thereby bring the
implementation of a workplace plan to a halt. We will not have this
critical piece of legislation compromised by the vagaries of
union-management talks in negotiations.
Another important consideration is that employment equity is an
integral part of human resources management. Company after
company testified before the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons and told us what an
important tool employment equity has become in their overall
business plans.
The sort of regime proposed by the Bloc Quebecois might
provide unions with an opportunity to exercise direct influence in
areas that remain the sole prerogatives of management, such as
recruitment.
I have several other fundamental problems with this motion,
which is obviously very flawed. Let us look at the reality that the
collaboration requirement cannot be the subject of a direction by
the human rights commission or an order by a tribunal. Clearly a
true spirit of co-operation has to come about spontaneously. It
cannot be forced or coerced.
Aside from that, there is the fact that the primary reason the
government decided against making this collaboration the subject
of a direction or order is that there is no provision in the act for a
tribunal to make orders against a bargaining agent. Collaboration
requires two parties working together. It would be discriminatory
15197
to enforce this provision against only one of those parties, that is,
the employer. It is worth noting that the proposed amendment will
also reduce the consultation requirement that exists in Bill C-64.
In the amendment there no longer has to be consultation about
the implementation or revision of an employment equity plan. That
consultation requirement can be the subject of a direction by the
commission or an order by a tribunal. I must say I find it surprising
that the Bloc would recommend deleting these crucial provisions
and replacing them with weaker provisions that cannot be the
subject of a direction or order.
For these reasons, it simply does not make sense to seriously
entertain this motion. The government is satisfied with the clause
the way it now stands as amended in committee.
Again I want to thank the Bloc for its contribution in committee
in this regard. I believe our willingness to accommodate the Bloc's
concerns is testament to the goodwill we see in this House. But we
must not be tempted by good intentions to push the process too far.
To go further is inadvisable.
Our approach to this issue is not arbitrary nor is our amendment
despotic. It is simply realistic. Management has the final
responsibility for all employer obligations under the bill and will
be answerable to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if the
obligations are not met. Therefore final decision making must
continue to belong to management.
I trust that this explanation satisfies the House that this motion
must be rejected. I urge my colleagues to do precisely that.
(1620 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): 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.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can hardly stay on my feet after that. It is phenomenal.
The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has made a
great contribution to this legislation at committee. Although I am
not a permanent member of that committee, I do have some interest
in this particular legislation and sat in on that committee a couple
of times and was very encouraged by his participation.
I do have some reservations about this motion, but not because I
am not sympathetic to union-sided labour requests. In fact I am
very sympathetic to their concerns. However, it seems to me that
this section is not necessary in order to get co-operation between
management and trade unions or employee unions in this context.
Any employment equity plan could and should and indeed
probably will be the subject of a collective agreement.
The problem I have with this is in legislating union involvement
as opposed to leaving the balance between management and unions
the way it is so that management retains the prerogative in terms of
recruitment.
It seems to me that clause 15, which the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had a hand in establishing at committee,
sets out the necessary collaboration between management and
labour. However, the problem is that ultimately, because
management has the prerogative to hire, only management can
have the responsibility under the scheme of this act.
I would be afraid that if we create a scheme where management
and union are both responsible, then effectively we undermine our
ability to enforce employment equity through management. We
cannot simultaneously undermine management and promote a
scheme that would make labour responsible for management
activities. It seems to me that this is an integral part of human
resources management and an important part of the general
Canadian way of doing business.
Only the employer has the final decision on who to hire,
promote, train, or terminate. The hon. member should be conscious
of the importance of that within this bill, because it allows us to
maintain the balance between management and labour. There is no
disagreement here. We need the unions to participate fully, but we
cannot upset the balance by forcing them to co-design a program or
to consider them co-responsible with employers or we are going to
undermine the system.
I would like to remind my colleague that workforces of
employers are often represented by more than one union. This
happens frequently, for instance, in Windsor, Ontario, where I am
from. If all union representatives were expected to co-manage the
preparation, implementation, and revision of this kind of plan there
could be a situation of protracted delays in implementation,
increased costs to employers, and possible deterioration in
labour-management relations.
15198
(1625 )
To my good friend from the Reform Party, I would like to point
out that the cost of this to government would be phenomenal. If
unions as well as employers were to submit reports and the human
resources ministry required to make the reports public, there would
be significant additional costs incurred. Since the human resources
development ministry is required to make reports public, every
expansion requires a greater budget for copying and distribution to
interested parties across the country.
It is because of the Canadian people and in their interests that the
Employment Equity Act is where it is today. It is a viable and
effective tool for human resources management. I think we should
let it continue to work the way it is, working co-operatively
between management and unions. This has been done successfully
in most employment equity activities for over a decade. Employers
should continue to strive to get the input of interested parties in this
valuable process, but let it be part of the collective bargaining
system rather than something we enforce.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin by associating myself most strongly with the cogent and
competent comments of my colleague. I would continue the
alliterative strain by naming her, but that of course would be
unparliamentary, so I would merely congratulate the member for
Windsor-St. Clair.
I want to say that I congratulate as well the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, because I know he has worked very
hard on the committee. But I think his amendments in this
particular vein do not go anywhere to further the spirit of the bill. It
is furthering the spirit of the bill that the passage is all about. I
guess I could say we want it to go through spiritus intactus, because
this is a very important piece of legislation. It is important because
it is broadly misunderstood in more than one area.
I heard earlier today, before leaving the House to go to
committee, people equate employment equity and affirmative
action. I want to talk about that first of all, because employment
equity and affirmative action are not the same thing. Indeed, if I
could go into employment equity, especially today, when we have
all been visited by members and representatives of the Canadian
Medical Association, a medical metaphor might be appropriate.
When I say that employment equity is preventive, affirmative
action is curative.
I might add that affirmative action is something that is enshrined
in our Constitution, in our charter of rights and freedoms.
Employment equity too has a very respectable and respected
history in the House and indeed in the legislatures of a number of
the provinces.
When I hear employment equity attacked I constantly hear it
attacked on the basis of a new disadvantaged group. I want to make
it very clear that I am not speaking now with tongue in cheek. I am
not being sarcastic. I am, if anything, being plaintive. As I stand
here in the House of Commons in this fall of 1995, I am a little tired
of hearing that white males in this society are some sort of
endangered species. White males still get 60 per cent of the jobs in
this country. Name the profession, name the job category, name the
area, and they still do better than anybody else.
Just look at the Chamber when it is full. Look at it tonight when
we have the vote. Who are the overwhelming members of this
Chamber in all parties? White males, and fond I am of most of you.
But there is no question that it does not reflect the demographic
picture of this country.
First, if the House were to reflect this country demographically,
52 per cent of the seats would be taken up by females first and
foremost. We are slowly but surely getting to that point.
(1630)
An hon. member: Right on.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. There appears to be some
problem with the ventilation system in the Chamber. I am not
responsible for the noise I assure you.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has a good point but I would
ask her if she would please not use the term ``you'' except when
referring to whomever happens to be in the chair. I am sure the
noise will diminish.
Ms. Clancy: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. At any rate I have used
this phrase in a somewhat humorous vein but I will use it in truth
here in this Chamber.
A number of my colleagues in debates on gender equality,
employment equity or in whatever particular area you want said to
me: ``There are women's groups, where are the men's groups?'' I
say not at all in jest there is a men's group and it is called western
civilization. That is the men's group.
If you go to any legislative assembly in the western world with
the exception of two of the Scandinavian nations, the majority of
elected members are white males. This is not to say that white
males do not do a good job. Sure they do. But it is not the only face
to be represented. Nor is it the only face to be represented on
television stations, in radio stations, in fire stations, in whatever
areas of employment, particularly those that come under the
purview of the federal government.
It was my great pleasure and to my great benefit in the area of
education that in the last Parliament I was the vice-chair of the
committee that reviewed the employment equity legislation. I
listened to a number of well-meaning white males who came
before the committee and bragged. For example, in one
organization-I will not name it but it has something to do with
horses and red coats-in 24 years of an employment equity
program it had added to the very highest echelons something like
20 women. Mr.
15199
Speaker, I think you will sympathize with me that I found that
statistic a little wanting, not to say a little daunting as well.
There is not a homogeneous culture in this country. There are
any number of phrases that can be used to describe the beautiful
face of Canada. The one that I heard most in my childhood was a
vertical mosaic. I still like that one. I think it speaks very well to us.
We have used the phrase multiculturalism over the years and I
like that one too. I like the fact, no, I love the fact that in this House
of Commons today we see represented a variety, a rainbow of
races, religious backgrounds, creeds and so on. That is the face of
Canada. Our sorrow, our tragedy and our fault as legislators is that
the rainbow is not represented the way it should be in the
employment categories in those various institutions that fall within
the federal purview.
When we dealt with employment equity in that committee in the
last Parliament the big problem was enforcement and teeth. This
bill is going to change that. This bill is going to make employment
equity a reality.
I can only say that those people who fear it-and I am prepared
to explain the difference between affirmative action and
employment equity if they have a problem-do not really
understand it. There is nothing to fear in allowing, encouraging and
promoting the participation in the fullest sense of the word of all
Canadians. It is our country. It belongs to all of us. Everyone
should have equality of opportunity.
(1635 )
I do not for one instant think that anyone on either side of the
House would be prepared to stand and deny that he or she agrees
with equality of opportunity. That is something that all of us, no
matter what our political stripe, agree with.
Consequently, if one agrees with that, then you must support this
legislation. This legislation is not about special rights. It is not
about saying to people you deserve something better because you
are different. It is saying: ``You deserve your share of the Canadian
dream. You deserve equality of opportunity. You deserve to have
systemic discrimination, unnatural barriers, removed so that with
your training and your ability no matter what your skin colour, your
gender, your religious background, your regional background, et
cetera, you have the same road ahead of you as any other
Canadian''.
As we stand here and go forward in these pre-referendum days,
Canadians are looking to us as legislators to talk about what this
country really means. All of us know that what it really means is
fairness, a sense of justice and an opportunity even for people who
do not know what they are talking about to speak.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is part of the government. I would hope she would stay for
just a few moments because I want to back up some of what she just
said.
There are some things she could do as a government member
that ought to be done with regard to a certain problem that has
developed literally outside the doors of this Chamber. As we all
know, a construction program is going on outside. Fuller
Construction has a renovation job. It has subcontracted to another
contractor who has in turn subcontracted some more to a unit run
by Ray Wolf. He apparently made the mistake of having a 32-year
old female engineer named Ms. Raney in charge of the project. The
intermediate contractor forced Mr. Wolf to quit the job because he
was using a female engineer.
Since the hon. member is part of the government I would hope
she is listening to this and will do what she can to intervene to make
certain this injustice is corrected.
I realize the interim construction company is headed by someone
from the Middle East who has a different view of the role of women
than some of the rest of Canadian society. However, we live under
Canadian law. These are the Canadian Houses of Parliament his
company is working on. Surely there could be more ability to
recognize people on merit rather than to discriminate against them
because a company chooses to use a female engineer.
I do not want to say very much more about this legislation. I am
just so angry this kind of thing can happen here on the grounds of
Parliament Hill that I wanted to make sure it was raised after
someone who has been a firm and loud protector of the equality of
women as is the member for Halifax who preceded me.
I was hoping I could add some fire to her usual ability to get
things done that would have her take on this case and see if the
minister of public works cannot correct this great injustice which
has no place in the Parliament of Canada or in this country.
(1640 )
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say at the outset that the Bloc's
recommendations have resulted in improvements to Bill C-64. My
hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve contributed to the
work of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Disabled Persons. His dedication to employment equity has
added to the legislation.
I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to see Motion No.
7 put forward by the opposition. The Bloc Quebecois has already
raised this issue in committee and the committee has gone a
15200
considerable way to accommodate it. The hon. member persuaded
the committee to accept a requirement that employers and labour
must collaborate in the preparation, implementation and revision of
the employment equity plan.
Let me begin by reminding the House that the existing act only
calls for consultation between the employer and worker
representatives. Bill C-64 would go further, ensuring that
employees, through their unions or employee representatives, will
have considerably more input to their company's equity plan when
the plan is developed, implemented and revised. We saw the merit
of this approach and have endorsed it. However, the proposed
amendment to the bill goes too far and is not advisable. Allow me
to explain why.
This amendment would preserve the employer's sole
responsibility to prepare its employment equity plan in
consultation with employee representatives. However, if adopted
this motion would import a government imposed requirement for
co-management rather than collaboration between the employer
and employee representatives in the implementation and revision
of employment equity plans.
This poses some potentially serious problems since the
obligations set out in the act are imposed on employers alone. A
bargaining agent might very well refuse to co-operate, perhaps
motivated by reasons that have nothing to do with employment
equity, and could bring the implementation of employment equity
to a standstill, potentially putting the employer in a situation of
non-compliance.
Furthermore, since employment equity is an integral part of
human resource management this sort of regime might provide
unions with an opportunity to exercise direct influence in areas that
have usually remained the sole prerogative of management, such as
hiring and promotion.
Surely my hon. colleague will recognize that management
should have the final responsibility for all employer obligations
under the bill and would be held accountable if those
responsibilities are not met. It is only reasonable, therefore, that
final decision making continue to belong to management in this
area.
For the benefit of all employers and worker representatives and
for the good of workplace relations, I must recommend that the
House not accept the proposed amendment.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I endorse the
principle of labour-management consultation and co-operation on
matters relating to the workplace under federal jurisdiction.
We all know that working together brings out the best results for
all concerned. This is what we are trying to achieve in the wording
of clause 15 of Bill C-64 as it has been reported back from the
standing committee.
Let me read the introductory portion of what clause 15 currently
says:
Every employer shall consult with its employees' representatives by inviting
the representatives to provide their views-
Bill C-64 also explicitly recognizes the role of bargaining agents
in the workplace. I quote further from clause 15:
Where employees are represented by a bargaining agent, the bargaining agent
shall participate in a consultation under subsection (1).
The above provisions underline the kind of environment we all
want to have in the workplace.
(1645)
We do not want management to be making arbitrary decisions
without consulting the interest of employees. We want the
employees to be fully involved in all matters that involve them, be
they health and safety issues or employment equity issues.
We want to have a policy of inclusion followed, not one of
exclusion. We believe that everyone in the workplace should have
the opportunity to put forward their ideas and views. In line with
the entire spirit of employment equity is the elimination of barriers.
The standing committee recognized the value of this type of
consultation when it reviewed the bill introduced at first reading.
The testimony they heard from the witnesses at their hearings led
them to strengthen the provisions. The provisions currently in the
bill have already been strengthened from what was originally
proposed. All one has to do is to read further in clause 15:
Every employer and its employees' representatives shall collaborate in the
preparation, implementation and revision of the employer's employment equity
plan.
The standing committee added the concept of collaboration. This
goes beyond the concept of consultation. However the standing
committee recognized that the concept of collaboration could not
interfere with employers' obligations under the act.
It is for the individual employer who has specific obligations
under the act that there are provisions for non-compliance when the
employer meets these obligations. That is why there is a very
important provision at the end of clause 15:
Consultation under subsection (1) and collaboration under subsection (3) are
not forms of co-management.
We need to recognize that the responsibility for implementing
employment equity in the workplace is that of management. The
15201
current wording of the bill provides for this. That is why I have so
many problems with the wording of Motion No. 7. We have to be
very careful in considering the implications of the proposed
amendment.
If adopted, the amendment would require the employer and its
employees' representatives to implement and revise the
employment equity plan jointly. In a perfect world perhaps this
would work, but we must recognize that we are still trying to
achieve a perfect world, as my colleagues from the Reform Party
tell me on a daily basis. This is one reason there is need for an
employment equity act and this is one reason the proposed
amendment goes too far.
A number of problems would result if the motion were adopted
and the act subsequently proclaimed into law. Employers could try
to evade their responsibilities by saying that progress is being
stalled by an unco-operative bargaining agent. Presumably there
would be a call for a compliance officer to intervene, but there are
no enforceable obligations on bargaining agents in the legislation.
There would nothing a compliance officer could do in a case where
there are bad relations between labour and management, perhaps as
a result or in connection with an industrial dispute.
Employment equity is related to the human resources
management field and to the hiring and promotion processes.
These are traditionally considered to be areas reserved to
management. We have to recognize this reality.
(1650)
Again I reinforce the purpose of the act as set out in section 2:
The purpose of this act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no
person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons
unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions
of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples,
persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to
the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the
same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of
differences.
In summary the purpose of the act is to achieve equality in the
workplace and to correct the conditions and disadvantages
experienced by certain groups. Bill C-64, as currently worded,
provides the appropriate balance between employee participation,
management powers and obligations. That is why we should not
adopt the motion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Davenport-nuclear tests.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): 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.
(1655)
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
15202
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.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-93,
an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax
Court of Canada Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 342)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
15203
Marchi
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-168
NAYS
Members
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bouchard
Brien
Campbell
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Dupuy
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Langlois
Lincoln
Maheu
Manley
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Minna
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robillard
Speller
Tobin
Vanclief
(1725 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the
committee.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House
will now proceed to the recorded division on the motion.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe members would agree that
those who voted on the previous motion, the main motion for
second reading of Bill C-93, be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote against
the motion, except for those who might wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present will vote
yea.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 343)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
15204
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Caron
Chatters
Cummins
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bouchard
Brien
Campbell
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Dupuy
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Langlois
Lincoln
Maheu
Manley
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Minna
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robillard
Speller
Tobin
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
_____________________________________________
15204
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
September I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether in light
of the French government's decision to resume nuclear tests he
would call for a boycott of products made in France. The minister
replied that although deploring France's decision to test it is more
important that next year France sign the comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty.
(1730 )
Last May in Geneva, 25 years after the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty was signed, 178 nations voted to extend it and make it
forever illegal for any member country beyond the original five
nuclear powers to develop nuclear weapons. In return, nuclear
powers would sign a permanent test ban treaty next year, a first
15205
step in dismantling their nuclear arsenals as required under the
non-proliferation treaty.
While negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
are under way, France has embarked on a course of action that
threatens to destabilize this important treaty process. When these
actions are combined with a reopened debate in the United States
on whether nuclear tests below 500 pounds of explosives should be
allowed under the proposed treaty, you can see why non-nuclear
nations are wondering whether nuclear powers are truly committed
to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the eventual
elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
The government of President Chirac argues that the principal
reason the present tests are necessary is to provide data for
developing nuclear test simulation software. I repeat: nuclear test
simulation software. By contrast, in 1991 President François
Mitterrand ordered that nuclear test simulation software be
developed without further tests. In addition, the American and
British governments have already developed nuclear test
simulation capabilities. The fact that the technology for nuclear test
simulation already exists renders current tests by France
unnecessary.
As we talk in this chamber, the O.J. Simpson trial and other
recent murder trials command more attention than the actions taken
by the French government, which threaten the comprehensive test
ban treaty process and the South Pacific environment. Such actions
should not just be deplored, they ought to be forcefully criticized,
as the Australian and Japanese governments have done.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to call in the ambassador
for France and ask that the French government stop all further tests.
If this is unsuccessful, Canadians can register their disapproval by
simply boycotting products made in France, from wines to
perfumes, from cheese to fashion, from cars to tourism.
In Sweden the voluntary actions of citizens have resulted, I am
told, in an 80 per cent reduction in the sale of French wines.
Canadians as consumers can express their disapproval too. It is the
only weapon we have as citizens to convey our sentiments about a
primitive use of power or about an action that is best described as
the pornography of power.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Davenport for reminding the public of the importance of this
subject.
With respect to French nuclear testing, the Government of
Canada has expressed its view on the matter in a clear and
unambiguous manner. We deplore the resumption of these tests and
have made our position known to France in no uncertain terms.
When China resumed its tests earlier this year, we also expressed
our views on that matter.
Our position is clear. We call on all nuclear weapons states to
stop these tests. We call for a speedy progress toward the signature
of a comprehensive test ban treaty, the CTBT, which is the best way
to ensure the end of all tests for all time.
Canada's position with respect to nuclear testing is not a recent
one. This is a bedrock policy that we have had since the days of
former Prime Minister Trudeau when he set out the strategy calling
for the suffocation of nuclear arsenals. The hon. member was here
at the time and helped to develop this policy.
We are one of the few countries in the world that has the
capability yet has decided as a matter of policy not to develop
nuclear weapons. We have also chosen not to have any nuclear
armed weapons stationed on our soil.
Having succeeded in getting the non-proliferation treaty
extended for an indefinite period we are now working very hard to
ensure a truly comprehensive verifiable nuclear weapon test ban,
the CTBT, is signed by June 1996.
We are very heartened to learn that so far three of the five
nuclear weapons states, the U.S., the U.K. and France, have come
out supporting a zero option CTBT, which the hon. member will be
pleased to hear. This means a treaty which will allow no nuclear
explosions whatsoever.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for helping Canada
develop our policy in banning all nuclear weapons from this planet.
The Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.)