[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 17, 1995
.1840 
[English]
The Chair: I would like the committee to start its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64.
At this point I would like to call on the officials from the Department of Human Resources Development.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I would like to move a motion. Section 13 of the Employment Equity Act reads:
- Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every three year period
thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act including the
effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as
may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
The Chair: I call the member out of order. I have just been informed by the clerk that there is no substitution form to constitute you as a regular member of the committee. Therefore, it would be out of order for the chair to accept the motion.
I will now ask the departmental officials to introduce themselves and to make their opening remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Excuse me. Will they be making some preliminary remarks? Will we not be discussing this? We would like some clarification as to how we are going to proceed.
[English]
The Chair: They can choose to make a brief opening statement if they wish, and following that we will ask questions.
Ms Gay Stinson (Employment Equity Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm the person within the Department of Human Resources Development who is responsible for the implementation of the current Employment Equity Act and the federal contractors program and the program supports in the area of consultative services and data gathering and dissemination to support both of those mandatory programs.
With me today is Michael Dixon, who has been throughout this process the legal adviser to the department in drafting the bill that is before you and the adviser on these matters as we have proceeded with this projet de loi.
.1845
We are not here with an opening statement. We are here, however, to answer any questions of clarification or information that might be required in the course of the discussion.
The Chair: I thank the officials for that statement.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(5), we will now start our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
On clause 2 - Purpose of Act
Mr. Strahl: Are we on clause 2 already? I guess my other motion is out of order by now. Is it?
The Chair: We have started the proceedings.
The Clerk of the Committee: The Standing Orders require that clause 1 be stood until the end of the consideration of the bill, so it will be taken up at the end rather than at the beginning.
Mr. Strahl: I have a couple of questions.
As you can tell, there was obviously a foul-up on my part. I'm sorry I didn't get that paper in so that I could deal with my motion.
Does this packet include all the motions to date?
The Clerk: There are 126 amendments, I believe.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I had a motion. Unfortunately, as you say, that paperwork was not in order, so I'm out of luck. I am, however, going to submit some more amendments to the clerk at this time, if I may.
The Chair: I think that is allowed.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a significant number of amendments there, and I was wondering if we need to get those amendments into the hands of the members so that we don't miss any.
The Chair: We have a sequence under the Standing Order where we go clause by clause. If the member from the Reform Party feels that for any given clause his amendment appears relevant, he can inform the committee. If we need time at that point to look at the amendment, the chair will be pleased to allow that time.
Mr. Strahl: The only problem, Mr. Chairman, is that I have given my only copy of the amendments to the clerk.
The Chair: Unfortunately, the difficulty was not created by the committee but rather by the member himself.
Mr. Strahl: Except, Mr. Chairman, that I have submitted the -
Mr. Ménard: We don't have the translation.
Mr. Strahl: I have submitted the amendments in their proper format, I believe. I don't think there's anything out of order. I think the clerk is required to read them out as they come round.
We're on clause 2, and I think I have an amendment on clause 2 in that pile there. I think everything is in order. He should at least read it out. There is a Standing Order that says you must read it out in both official languages, and I think that is what would be in order. I don't have to make copies for the rest of the committee, I don't think.
The Chair: Of course, it is courteous to make copies for the committee. Other members on the government side and from the Bloc did make copies available or submitted the amendments in time.
That said, I think we will proceed as the rules dictate.
.1850
Mr. Strahl: If there's something out of order with my amendments, then I think you could tell me that. I believe, and the clerk could correct me, that if I give the amendments to the clerk in the proper format, that's my obligation as a member. The clerk, then, is required to read the amendments out as we come to the clauses -
The Chair: The chair has not heard any objection to your proposing these amendments, so your debate on a non-existing issue is irrelevant at this time. There has not been any objection on the part of the committee to you submitting these amendments.
Mr. Strahl: I move that clause 2 be amended by striking out line 7 and substituting the following:
- equality of opportunity in the workplace so that no person
Mr. Ménard: First of all, we worked in a spirit of co-operation since January, and I would like to think that this will continue. Naturally, everyone has the right to express their different opinions. However, I suggest that we should start by agreeing on some specific, clear rules as to how we will proceed.
Are the amendments put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party available? Any member may present amendments.
I've seen Reform Party amendments scattered throughout the document. You should put them to a vote as they come up in the course of our clause-by-clause study of the bill.
[English]
The Chair: They have some amendments here. I do not have the exact count, but at least 30 of their amendments are in this package. What they have done today is submit additional amendments, which is their prerogative, as I understand the rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You have some amendments that we do not have, and they are in English only? Is that correct?
[English]
The Chair: Are they only in English or only in French?
Mr. Strahl: They are only in English.
The Chair: I think the chair must make a ruling that official documents must be in the two official languages, as I understand it.
Mr. Strahl: According to the Standing Orders, they have to be in either official language.
The Chair: I have just been advised they can be tabled in -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The Board of Internal Economy has always had very clear provisions on this matter. Unanimous consent is required in order to distribute a document that is not available in French.
I'm not trying to make things difficult, but I must say that I am rather surprised. My colleague, who I thought was my friend, is well aware that there is a Bloc member on the committee and that I want to see the amendments in French. I don't understand what's going on here.
Did my colleague not have some time to get the documents translated? I don't know, but it cannot be assumed that I will agree to having these documents distributed.
[English]
The Chair: The chair would like to assist members. I think we would like to work on a cooperative basis.
There is a procedure before us. When you feel you cannot fully debate an amendment for any reason, including the reason of language, the non-availability in French, any member may move that proposed amendment be stood, which means it will be taken care of at the end of all those clauses upon which we are ready to proceed, according to the Standing Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Since I'm well aware that from the beginning, you've worked to get the best possible co-operation from all of us, you understand that it is the Bloc Québécois' prerogative to object to the distribution of any document, whether a statement, amendment, or whatever, in English only.
I'm quite prepared to co-operate with the Reform Party, but I find it astonishing that they did not get their amendments translated into French.
I would therefore suggest that we begin our work and perhaps by tomorrow we may have what we are requesting.
[English]
The Chair: The clerk has just advised me that indeed my understanding is correct. We have a right to look at a document in two official languages.
The clerk has advised me that in fact the document may be given to the clerk in one language and the document will be translated into French.
.1855
But given the time this document was submitted to the clerk, it makes common sense that there would be no time to translate it, or we would delay the proceedings of this committee.
I don't think the member from the Reform Party would like to see the proceedings of this committee delayed unnecessarily on that basis alone. I would appeal to the spirit of the member of the Reform Party, rather than every member asking for this to stand, to submit it to the clerk for proper translation and consideration after translation.
Mr. Strahl: So what are you looking for, then, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: We cannot debate your amendment without proper translation into French. How can you read something into a debate when a member of the committee, according to the Official Languages Act, must be able to debate it in the language of his choice? If, according to his estimation, his understanding of that language is not as good in the English language, fairness dictates that must be translated into French.
We have a precedent in this committee that documents must be in both official languages, and the chair stands very firmly on that decision. Therefore, through no fault of the committee, through no fault of the Reform Party member, the motion being given only tonight, it must go to the chair of the committee and the chair of the committee will have it translated. Until that time I cannot allow debate on that particular motion. That is the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Strahl: So what are you going to do with the amendments?
The Chair: Well, if you propose to challenge the decision of the chair, I advise you that you can challenge the ruling of the chair and let the committee decide.
Mr. Bevilacqua (York North): Go ahead, challenge him.
Mr. Strahl: I move that the meeting adjourn until the amendments are translated.
Mr. Bevilacqua: No. You don't have the support of the government side.
Mr. Strahl: I can move that. I move that we do that or we debate it.
The Chair: Well, I'd just like to seek advice. Can the motion to adjourn be entertained at this time?
The clerk has advised me that we can proceed to put it to a vote, and since a motion to adjourn is not debatable, at this point the motion -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Does the motion put forward by our colleagues from the Reform Party require a seconder? I don't think anyone seconded it.
[English]
The Chair: My understanding is a motion to adjourn does not need a seconder. Can you please repeat the motion?
Mr. Strahl: I move that the committee adjourn. My original motion was -
The Chair: Excuse me, the chair would like to say that a motion to adjourn is not debatable. When you place the motion, the motion must be immediately put to a vote.
Mr. Strahl: Yes, but that's why it wasn't, because that wasn't my original motion. I think what I said was - we can check it - I move to adjourn so that the amendments can be translated.
The Chair: Can you state your motion, please. Perhaps I'll just be slightly more flexible. I think the member is forcing the chair to be truly firm on this issue. Again, what is the motion?
Mr. Strahl: I move that the committee adjourn until such time as the amendments can be translated.
The Chair: Proceed to debate on the motion.
Mr. Strahl: As I mentioned earlier, Mr Chairman, I had a motion that I was, of course, trying to get on the table. Unfortunately the paperwork was not signed so you ruled me out of order, which is unfortunate because it was the motion I think that could have avoided a lot of this hassle. But now we're into clause-by-clause study and there's no turning back.
.1900
I think the Standing Orders are clear. Mr. Ménard has already mentioned that we have to have these motions translated so that he's comfortable with them and that all committee members can get a copy of them. I think they should be filtered in with the other amendments that have already been distributed by the clerk. But since we have additional...they should be put in a package so that none of them are missed and none of the people feel that they've had a glossing over.
Obviously the best way to do that is to adjourn for a while. If we adjourn until we get those translated, then I think we can get on with the rest of the amendments and the rest of the debate. Until such time, I don't see how we can have a reasonable debate without that. It just seems obvious to me that is what has to happen. I don't know of any other way to do it.
I withheld submitting them because I had hoped to get this other motion on the floor. But since I can't do that one, I had to submit them after that. So there has been no time for me to get them translated. I think they're in order otherwise. Now it's just a matter of whether we adjourn until that's done.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion?
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): To come to the support of my colleagues, both Reform and Bloc actually, perhaps I could add that I think this bill is of enough importance that as these amendments are presented we should take each and every item and take a look at it as each member of this committee would like it looked at. I don't think we should put off the order in a sense that would confuse the proceedings of the bill.
As the chair suggested, if we have these motions stood, perhaps the review of the act would be the loser in that process. As we're talking about certain items, that is indeed the time to talk about related items.
I would support the notion of taking some time and duly considering the motions or the amendments that have been done. If my colleague from the Bloc feels it necessary to have those amendments in French, then for him that should be allowed. To do that means taking some time to get the translation done. I think that's fair for him, fair for our look at the bill, and fair for the process we're proceeding with.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion to adjourn?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I move that you call the vote.
[English]
Motion negatived
Mr. Strahl: Again, I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm still not sure what is going on here. I have submitted the amendments in proper form in English and you say they will not be dealt with now?
.1905
The Chair: I think Mr. Strahl has had the opportunity to propose a motion and debate the motion. To re-debate the motion will truly be an abuse of the privilege of the rules. I would say this further submission at this point on that issue is out of order.
Mr. Strahl: But, Mr. Chairman, it says in the Standing Orders I can submit them in either language.
The Chair: I'll suspend the proceedings for ten minutes.
.1916
The Chair: I would like to resume the meeting. The clerk has advised your chair, for your consideration, that by unanimous consent the committee could agree to proceed with the amendments available now in both official languages and to stand each clause as it completes consideration of these amendments. It could then reopen the clauses to which the Reform or Mr. Strahl has any further amendments, when these have been translated.
This is the suggestion of the clerk. Do I have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: We do not have unanimous consent. We shall proceed to consideration of clause 2.
Mr. Strahl: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Can I read out an amendment that has not been translated, make an amendment to whatever? Does it have to be in writing ahead of time and translated? Can you not make any amendments on the go? That's going to screw up the whole committee. There is bound to be the odd amendment you'll want to make during the proceedings.
The Chair: The standing rules have been developed by Parliament to allow for order. All of us have received copies of these Standing Orders and it is deemed that we shall have studied them. Having failed to take heed of the rules of order, I think members have to suffer the consequence, if any. In the spirit of cooperation, I would say let us proceed, and if you would like to propose it at the end of the proceedings, you can do that at that time.
I realize you have already submitted more than 50 amendments in advance, more or less. You had done it before today's proceedings, indicating you knew the procedure. Therefore, to do something out of convention at this time, to say the least.... I would appeal to the Reform to now proceed clause by clause so that we can consider your amendments that were submitted in advance, the amendments of the Bloc that were submitted in advance, and the amendments of the government side, also submitted in advance. I think that will provide for fair play.
Mr. Strahl: But, Mr. Chairman, if it's only amendments that are submitted in advance...I realize I'm not a legislative genius but it seems to me that there has always been in committee an opportunity to amend at any time, in clause-by-clause study. There are continuous amendments. The last time I went through a clause-by-clause you could make an amendment and somebody might say, that's not clear enough, I'd like to make a subamendment, and they add or strike a word.
This goes on continuously in committees. To deny someone the right to make amendments unless they submit them a week in advance...how can you possibly know for sure? When one amendment passes, you may say, well, that takes care of my concern, but if it doesn't pass I want to propose another amendment.
I think the chair has to allow amendments as we proceed. We can't possibly know a week in advance every amendment. Even the government can't know for sure every amendment they want to make, because other amendments could come on the fly.
.1920
The Chair: Are you telling me, Mr. Strahl, that you did this only last night?
Mr. Strahl: No, I did it after I last submitted my amendments.
The Chair: How long ago was that?
Mr. Strahl: I don't know. The clerk would know.
The Chair: When did he submit the first set of amendments?
The Clerk: I believe it was on Thursday or Friday of last week.
The Chair: You are telling me that these were available at the time and you did not submit them. Why?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, that's irrelevant, whether I want to -
The Chair: It is relevant. Mr. Ménard has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You made a ruling on which we voted. I would therefore ask my colleagues in the Reform Party to be fair and accept the will of the committee, particularly since we would be quite entitled to be very insulted by their approach.
If the Reform Party wants to make matters worse, we can behave in that way as well. But I would suggest, rather, that our colleagues be gracious enough to allow us to work on clause 2. I understand that there are amendments from the Reform Party at least up to clause 25. We will discuss them, so I would ask them to kindly accept the decision we voted on and allow us to proceed with our study of clause 2.
[English]
The Chair: In consideration of clause 2 -
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, would you or the clerk just please tell me - and I realize I'm a rookie - if there was any precedent ever in the history of this Parliament or in the history of this place that disallowed amendments in committee.
The Chair: No -
Mr. Strahl: There cannot be. I cannot believe, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot move amendments during the clause-by-clause. It's just incredible.
The Chair: The chair has not made that ruling. You are creating a fiction. The chair has not made the ruling that you cannot propose amendments at the time of deliberation. The chair has not made that ruling. Again, you are creating a fiction.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, it says in the Official Languages Act -
The Chair: What I am saying is that we have agreed in the proceedings of this committee that the documents of that size ought to be circulated out of courtesy, in respect of the Official Languages Act, in respect of co-members of the committee, some of whom are facile in the other official language.
The member from the Bloc Québécois is appealing to your sense of courtesy. Is that granted or not?
Mr. Strahl: No. The reason it isn't, Mr. Chairman, is because everyone who comes to this place.... One of the first things you realize is that you can use either official language and you can use it freely. The reason we have translators in the booth and the reason we hire translators for the written word.... I think the translators can translate on the fly with perfect clarity; we can write the words out in both languages. This place, if no other place in Canada, should allow me to submit - whether you like that stack or not or whether I do it one at a time -
The Chair: The chair has heard your point. What you have said is simply that you would like to at least read your amendment in one language with no debate.
Mr. Strahl: No.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's very clear that the rules require the unanimous consent of the committee.
The Chair: About what?
Mr. Strahl: To do what?
Ms Catterall: To accept motions that aren't in both official languages.
Mr. Strahl: No, that's -
The Chair: He has proposed that to read the amendment in one language is allowable.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like our colleague to realize that he was negligent in this matter. I would like to put an end to these discussions, taking into consideration the many hours we've spent on this bill.
I accept the fact that members of the Reform Party may put forward amendments in one language only. I accept the amendments, but I'm not very pleased about the lack of courtesy they've shown today. This is a stalling tactic.
We will be informing the Board of Internal Economy of the House, to get some clearer instructions on this matter. However, I would like us to proceed with our work now.
May I ask my Reform colleague to assure me of his courtesy and co-operation in the future. This doesn't mean that we have to agree on everything, but we must stop using delaying tactics that are both childish and immature.
[English]
The Chair: We can allow -
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think I was interrupted on a point of order. I am not sure you should have allowed that. However, I am aware that Reform has plans to filibuster this committee all night, if necessary.
I think we're all here because we want to get this work done as quickly and efficiently as possible.
.1925
You need unanimous consent, and I personally am prepared to give consent only on the condition that Mr. Strahl and Mrs. Hayes agree that there will be no dilatory motions, that we will go through clause-by-clause and that we will deal with the business of the committee.
The Chairman: Is there consent for that?
Ms Catterall: I want to make clear that my consent is on that condition and I will withdraw that consent at any time.
Mr. Strahl: What is meant by dilatory motions? If I make a motion to amend -
Ms Catterall: We'll deal with the clauses and we'll deal with the amendments. We will not deal with foolishness such as delaying or filibustering.
Mr. Strahl: You have to be able to speak to an amendment.
Ms Catterall: Not ten times.
Mr. Strahl: You can speak until it's debated out. You have to allow debate. The Standing Orders say that you are allowed -
Mr. Bevilacqua: We've got all night. We'll stay here.
Mr. Strahl: Well, the Standing Orders say that you are allowed -
Mr. Bevilacqua: You can do it. You want to stay all night, don't you?
Mr. Strahl: The Standing Orders allow -
The Chair: I request that members please refer their interventions to the chair.
The chair would like to rule that indeed, as I have said, you may present your amendment in English. You have volunteered not to debate it. The Bloc in the spirit -
Mr. Strahl: I didn't volunteer to do that.
The Chair: You said that in your remarks.
Mr. Strahl: No. I didn't say that I volunteered not to debate it.
The Chair: You said there would be no debate and you would just read it into the proceedings and debate it when it's available in both official languages, didn't you?
Mr. Strahl: No, I didn't say that. I said I should be able to read it out.
We have simultaneous translation. We can write out the translation. In the meantime, we or somebody else can go ahead and do some of the translation work and get it done ahead of time. However, surely for the first few we could write out the translation for those who need it. Then, for those who like it in the other official language, they can just write it out as translated from the booth. That's why we have translation.
My understanding of the Standing Orders and the Official Languages Act is that you can submit in either language and then the clerk will look after the rest. That's why I did it. I didn't do it to be particularly snarky. I just thought it would be read out from there.
The Chair: The chair has heard the arguments. We have consumed nearly an hour. The chair's patience allows us to be more flexible, but there is a limit even to my patience.
On that note, I hear the Bloc accepting that you read in English.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Strahl: Have we even had a vote on it? Mr. Chairman, how can you adopt something we haven't had a vote on it?
The Chair: The question ``shall clause 2 carry?'' is the call for the vote.
Mr. Strahl: No debate?
The Chair: I have not seen any interest in debating clause 2.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to debate it.
The Chair: What is your...?
Mr. Strahl: Well, words fail me.
First, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I'd like to see the matter of the chairman's ruling reported to the House.
The Chair: The proceedings of the committee will go to the House in due time.
Mr. Strahl: But on the matter of the chairman's ruling on this matter, I would like to see it reported to the House.
I just can't believe this. I just can't believe you cannot submit in either language. I'll get on with the debate, but I would like to see the matter of the chairman's ruling be reported to the House.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Strahl: On debate -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Carried, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Strahl: On debate, Mr. Chairman, clause 2 deals with the purpose of this bill. This is a very important clause because this is going to set in motion the whole chain of events around this bill, many of which many of you know I'm not too keen on to begin with.
As a further point of clarification, are we allowed to ask questions of the witnesses on these clauses during the debate? Is that allowed?
The Chair: The member may ask questions of the witnesses. Of course, the witnesses may decline to answer. Proceed.
Mr. Strahl: Okay. Clause 2, as I mentioned earlier, sets in place the entire parameters that the rest of this, of which I'm none too keen, is going to rest on.
.1930
There is the language of this first clause, especially the portions that say it is to achieve equality in the workplace. I had an amendment but it's been ruled out of order. It seems to me more likely that the purpose of this bill is to force equality in the workplace, and it's one of the reasons I have trouble with this particular clause.
I would like to ask the witnesses this. When the drafters of this particular bill were putting this clause together, what exactly did they mean by achieving equality in the workplace?
The Chair: Will the witness respond?
Ms Stinson: I think the language that is used in clause 2 of the bill expresses the legislative intent of Parliament at the time, which is to design a piece of legislation aimed at achieving equality in the world of work insofar as it falls within federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Strahl: Does that equality include equality of income or equality of other things? What equality are they talking about there?
Ms Stinson: I think the statement of intent is expressed in the purpose clause.
Mr. Strahl: Does it mean equality of income?
Ms Stinson: I think when one reads the purpose clause together then one can see the scope that is encompassed and what is intended.
Mr. Strahl: I'm not sure. That's why I was asking that. If we are achieving equality in the workplace - and we discussed this in some of our other deliberations, as well - does the bill contain a definition of workplace?
Ms Stinson: I think we are not at the definitional clause at the moment. There is a series of definitions that are contained here, and I don't think we're debating that at the moment.
Mr. Strahl: No, I guess I just -
Ms Stinson: The purpose of clause 2 is to put language around the legislative intent that is expressed and that was expressed by Parliament in 1986 when the bill was passed and became law. That's what that clause is doing, and that is the best language that has been conceived to express what is in fact the legislative intent - to achieve equality in the workplace. It goes on to explain a little bit more about what it means by that, and the entire rest of the bill expresses the way in which the legislation is intended to operate to achieve that.
Mr. Strahl: If a workplace is undefined, how do we know whether we've achieved equality in the workplace? Is that a concern? For instance, does a workplace include things such as someone hooked by electronic connection to their home and they work at home? Is that considered a workplace as well, or is that not a concern?
Ms Stinson: I think you're asking a question that does not relate to clause 2.
Mr. Strahl: Except that if you are trying to find the purpose of the bill:
- The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be
denied...
- Then it could be very important to know what we're trying to achieve. If you're trying to
achieve equality in the workplace, is the workplace a place that has more than 100 employees,
or what is a workplace? That's the question I was asking about.
Mr. Strahl: Then I guess what you're getting at is that for any of the questions about benefits for reasons unrelated to ability or the fulfilment of the goal, you don't think that any of this needs to be answered while we debate the purpose of the bill?
It seems to me this is the whole crux of the issue. The questions all come in this first clause because the first clause is the one that sets out the rest of the bill. You have to have some way of knowing which workplace you're talking about, what you're denying, what benefits you're talking about and so on. Is that not so, or don't you see it that way?
.1935
Ms Stinson: Perhaps I should clarify the purpose of my being here tonight.
I am here to answer questions of fact, to clarify where possible, to provide information if I can. I cannot give a view or an opinion, and I'm not prepared to do so, and I have answered in terms of questions of fact as far as I can on what the purpose is of clause 2. That's as far as I can answer with regard to questions on that purpose clause.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the idea of equality in the workplace is meaning two separate things here. It means one thing to the drafters of this bill - equality of the workplace meaning that as we get into the bill -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I am going to ask the chair to call our colleague to order, because his remarks are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the issue before us. I would remind colleagues that they can not intimidate witnesses, and that questions must be for clarification of the meaning of the bill. So comments must be relevant. I would ask you to call the question on clause 2.
[English]
The Chair: I sustain the point of order, and I call the vote on clause 2.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, how can you call me in the middle of a debate?
The Chair: The chair has made a ruling. If you would like to challenge the ruling of the chair, so challenge.
Mr. Strahl: I'm challenging the ruling of the chair. I've quit with the witness. I'm not starting on the debate.
The Chair: No debate. You have challenged the ruling of the chair. I put a vote. The chair has ruled that the point of order raised is sustained and that we shall proceed with the consideration of clause 2.
Mr. Strahl: Does anybody else want to debate?
The Chair: No debate at this point. A motion is before the committee.
I would now like to know those in favour of the ruling of the chair. Are you overruling the ruling of the chair?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I agree with your decision.
[English]
The Chair: Sustained. Agreed with the ruling of the chair.
Ms Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think the motion is: shall the chair be sustained.
The Chair: Shall the chair be sustained? Thank you for that friendly advice.
Mr. Strahl: I have a point of order. I would like to call for a recorded vote on that, then. This is crazy; we have to be able to debate.
The Chair: The ruling of the chair is sustained. [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 2 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 3 - Definitions
The Chair: We have a lot of amendments here. In fact, on the advice of the clerk, we have consideration of the Reform amendment.
Would the mover of the motion speak to his or her motion?
.1940
Mrs. Hayes: I move that clause 3 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking lines 1 to 3 on page 2.
I would like to address that, if I may.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I don't want to do this, but I just want to give warning that I can play this game as well as anybody.
We had indicated that we would give unanimous consent to the introduction of these motions, provided there were no dilatory motions. In my view, calling for a recorded vote on every clause is a dilatory motion.
Mr. Strahl: They didn't approve mine anyway.
The Chair: This amendment has been submitted in the past.
Ms Catterall: This amendment was submitted in time. It's not one of those that requires unanimous consent.
I am just serving notice that we will cooperate as long as there is cooperation. This business of having recorded votes on every single clause and on every single motion is wasting the time, just as his party has wasted the time of Parliament for the last two weeks.
The Chair: The comments of the member have been heard.
Mrs. Hayes, proceed please.
Mrs. Hayes: I have a point of order, first, or a point of clarification on her point of order.
My honourable colleague was mentioning notices withdrawing support for unanimous consent. Could we review again what that was? Was it unanimous consent to read all motions? We didn't read that first motion. This was simply debate, right? It's my understanding that even before we weren't going according to any unanimous consent motion.
The Chair: The chair made a proposal, on advice of the clerk and the procedural expert, that we seek unanimous consent to have the amendments submitted by your party in one language only stood, and to consider the amendments submitted in advance in two official languages now available, and then to consider those amendments only in English thereafter following translation at a later date. That unanimous consent being denied, we are therefore proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration.
Now we are considering clause 3, and you are speaking to an amendment that you had previously submitted.
Mrs. Hayes: Just to comment on what you said, my honourable colleague is saying she will withdraw that support of unanimous consent. There is no unanimous consent to withdraw support from. Is that right? That is my understanding.
The Chair: Your remarks have been heard by the chair.
Mr. Strahl: On that same point of order, as I understand it, you cannot withdraw from unanimous consent.
Mrs. Hayes: There was no unanimous consent.
The Chair: You may proceed with consideration of clause 3.
Mrs. Hayes has the floor.
Mrs. Hayes: I'm looking at this clause, where it says:
- ``Commission'' means the Canadian Human Rights Commission established under section 26
of the Canadian Human Rights Act;
- We feel it is the Minister of Employment and Immigration that should be the entity responsible
for all of the aspects of this act, including the administration, the oversight and the enforcement,
and certainly not the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as described in this clause.
The Human Rights Commission was not originally, and should not now be, responsible for the administration and oversight of the 1986 Employment Equity Act, and should not therefore now be the governing agency responsible for the 1995 Employment Equity Act.
Under section 27 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has certain powers, duties and functions, and I would just like to remind the committee of those functions.
.1945
According to section 27 of that legislation, in addition to its duties under part III, with respect to the complaints regarding discriminatory practices, the commission is generally responsible for the administration of this part and parts I and III.
Specifically, it
- (a) shall develop and conduct information programs to foster public understanding of the Act
and of the role and activities of the Commission thereunder and to foster public recognition of
the principle described in section 2;
- (b) shall undertake or sponsor research programs relating to its duties and functions under this
Act and respecting the principle described in section 2;
- (c) shall maintain close liaison with similar bodies or authorities in the provinces in order to
foster common policies and practices and to avoid conflicts respecting the handling of
complaints in cases of overlapping jurisdiction;
- (d) shall perform duties and functions to be performed by it pursuant to any agreement entered
into under subsection 28(2);
- (e) may consider such recommendations, suggestions and requests concerning human rights
and freedoms as it receives from any source and, where deemed by the Commission to be
appropriate, include in a report referred to in section 61 reference to and comment on any such
recommendation, suggestion or request;
- (f) shall carry out or cause to be carried out such studies concerning human rights and freedoms
as may be referred to it by the Minister of Justice and include in a report referred to in section 61
a report setting out the results of each study together with such recommendations in relation
thereto as it considers appropriate;
- (g) may review any regulations, rules, orders, by-laws and other instruments made pursuant to
an Act of Parliament and, where deemed -
The Chair: Yes, we can dispense.
Mrs. Hayes: I think reading this clarifies exactly that nowhere in here is there a reference to what is now being put to that commission. I think that is of significance in what we're looking at. Where in the mandate of that commission is there something that relates to its present function under this new act? I would put that to the committee.
There is no mention of employment equity within the scope of what I've just read. Besides that, I believe in the mandate of departments there's the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canadian Human Rights Act. These two entities should be kept distinct and separate.
I guess to sum up - as I'm not allowed to finish although I was close - I certainly think the description of the powers and duties of the functions is important. But because it doesn't enter into that category and because it is overlapping the jurisdiction of two departments, I would put to the committee that this amendment should be supported by the committee and the commission should not be involved in the administration of this act. All reference to it should be deleted from this bill.
The Chair: Is there debate on this amendment?
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, it has been difficult, but having looked at the Reform motions, rather than dealing with them one by one I'd like to make an overall comment on the general tenor of the motions, because otherwise we'll be here not necessarily all night but perhaps all month.
We have looked at this package of amendments provided by the Reform members, and while we acknowledge that a lot of work has gone into this - we're looking at over 60 proposals here - we can only conclude that those efforts have been misdirected.
The overall effect of these amendments put forward by Reform is to completely change the meaning of the act, contradict the stated purpose of the act and take employment equity in this country back into the 1960s, take equality in this country back into the 1960s.
Mr. Chair, let me just put on the record what these amendments do. Essentially, they repeal the existing act, which has been in effect for eight years, by removing private sector employers from the purview of the act. It adopts the negative term ``affirmative action'' to replace the term ``employment equity''. It's almost as if it wants to fly a red flag and create opposition to any concept of equality for people in the workplace.
.1950
It prevents, through its amendments, the effective implementation of targeted employment equity measures for designated group employees. In other words, it totally ignores the fact that certain groups in society have not had an equal opportunity in employment -
Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, we're dealing with an amendment by Mrs. Hayes dealing with the striking of three lines at the top of page 3. I don't know whether what the hon. member is bringing up has any relevance to the elimination of those three lines. I think Mrs. Hayes was very relevant, very to the point. I don't think that talking about other amendments here is in order. We need to deal with this amendment by Mrs. Hayes.
Ms Catterall: I'm just coming to that, by coincidence, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Would you proceed, Ms Catterall?
Ms Catterall: I will. In fact, I think one does have to look at each amendment in the context of the total approach: the existing act, the bill now proposed and the total approach taken by the mover. In other words, how does this amendment affect the other intentions of the bill?
This amendment very specifically replaces the proper enforcement scheme using an independent agency, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, with a political system that would see one minister promoting, assessing and enforcing employment equity and the employment equity program of the Treasury Board and public sector employees. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
If we look at it in the overall context, instead of the role that's given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to work with employers to try to obtain voluntary cooperation in achieving the objectives of the act, the Reform amendments introduce criminal sanctions for failure to operate the identification of designated group employees. They offer a security blanket for any employer that wants to apply personal standards of merit or best qualified in an appropriate way.
Mrs. Hayes: On a point of order, I must register a complaint that what I'm hearing doesn't have anything to do with the amendment I've just put forward. I don't see where the topic being discussed relates to my suggestion.
The Chair: Ms Catterall addressed the amendment with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, established under the Human Rights Act -
Ms Catterall: I think I've indicated that one has to look at changing the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the context of the total act, because it does relate to every section of the act and it does relate to every one of the other amendments the Reform Party has put forward.
The net result of this and the other proposals put forward would be to deny the entire need for employment equity. Therefore this motion doesn't stand on its own; it stands in context with all the other motions put forward. It would deny and prevent the proper human resource management systems from achieving equality for people in the workplace.
The Reform proposals taken as a group - and this is one of them - would drastically reduce the coverage of the act. It would no longer apply to private sector employers; it would apply only to the public sector. This is very wrong, because we know that the act, having applied to the private sector for the last eight years, has achieved great strides in equality. It has done much better than the public service has done without an act applying to it.
This amounts to repealing the existing employment equity legislation, which an all-party committee of the last Parliament said needed to be strengthened, not abolished. This is completely unacceptable. Our government was elected on a promise of strengthening the Employment Equity Act, not repealing it. There's no way we can support this kind of amendment.
.1955
It would remove the role of the Human Rights Commission.
Let me be very specific on this particular amendment.
The minister would be given all judicial powers of enforcement. I've already referred to that as conflict of interest. The Human Rights Commission would play no role at all. In Reform proposals, the minister employs the compliance officers who are overseeing his own department and that of his colleague ministers. He would employ the tribunal. He or she would prosecute all the cases. That is a clear conflict of interest.
The tribunal panel would consist of lawyers who are employees of the very Department of Human Resources Development that is responsible for enforcing the act, and that is also subject to the act. The minister would be judge, jury and prosecutor in his or her own case.
The government was elected on the promise that it would give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the authority to investigate employment equity issues. This was in our red book. This is appropriate. This was an all-party recommendation after thorough review of the act - an impartial body that's responsible for both the private and the public sector. This government rejects any proposal that would require it to break its promise to Canadians.
I've talked about the Redway committee report. Obviously, some of our colleagues would have done well to read it. It recommended very clearly that an independent commission be responsible for the enforcement of the act. The Human Rights Commission fulfils this function.
The Reform Party doesn't want to propose another independent commission. They want to propose a political minister to be responsible. They are requiring that all self-identification be anonymous. This renders the information useless to an employer, who cannot then accommodate the differing needs of the different employees, and who wants to use the information to advance its employment equity and fairness in hiring and promoting people.
The Chair: Ms Catterall, could you indicate how much more debate time you will need?
Ms Catterall: Probably about another five minutes. Mr. Chair, it's in the interests of putting all of this in context, so I won't have to speak on every one of these ridiculous motions. So if you'll just be patient for another two minutes, you'll hear a lot less of me tonight.
The Reform Party is proposing to change the name of the act to the Affirmative Action Act. We know that affirmative action has created tremendous problems in the United States. We know that it has created tremendous hostility in society. This is not the Canadian way. Employment equity is a uniquely Canadian brand of fairness and equality that does not have the negative implications and the negative experiences that affirmative action has had in the United States.
The Reform Party is suggesting that, in fact, it not cover the Canadian Armed Forces or possibly the RCMP. One of the whole arguments here is fairness. How can a government agree that every other employer in the country but itself should be an equitable employer? How can it, as a government, pass laws that apply to other people but not to its own operations? Yet this is precisely what the Reform Party proposes.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chair, on a point of order.
This is about the fourth time now about relevancy. Of course the member is free to speak her mind, and I wouldn't deny her that. But she is going through an entire list of amendments. This has nothing to do with the amendment on the table. The amendment on the table is to strike the three lines on page 2. That's what we should be speaking to. If you'll grant me the same latitude to speak and wax eloquent about all things, I am happy - but she is not speaking to the amendment.
The Chair: Ms Catterall, would you please focus your debate on the clause under consideration?
.2000
Ms Catterall: I hope, Mr. Chair, that the Reform Party has some consistency and coherence in their approach within their amendments, that one is not separate from the other, that they all coherently come together and present a certain view of employment equity, and therefore that it is entirely relevant to discuss them as they relate to one another.
The Chair: There's a point of order from Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Chair, again I would challenge my honourable colleague. I think it was she who made the point at the beginning; she demanded that each representation on each amendment indeed specifically address that amendment and stay to the point. I find it most interesting that this particular member is now rambling all over every possible amendment she can that is being put forward. I would certainly challenge her on that.
I also am curious about her last comment, where she says she hopes this all comes to some point. Yet she's already said that this is all some part of some kind of plan. I find what she's saying is not particularly logical at this point in time, and I ask that she conclude what she's saying, unless she gives us latitude, as my colleague said, to discuss the whole bill at every amendment.
The Chair: The chair requests Ms Catterall to conclude on this debate.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I would find it much easier to conclude if there weren't continuous interruptions of points of order, which I think have more than tripled the amount of time I'm taking.
I will concentrate on only one more particular point, because I do think these amendments have to be considered in a context, just as the act does. These amendments place a fanatical emphasis on hiring only the best qualified without regard to designated group status -
Mr. Strahl: I have a point of order again, Mr. Chairman. This has nothing to do with the Human Rights Commission.
Ms Catterall: This is the fifth point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Strahl: Those three lines are what we're debating, and now she's talking about merit in the public service. It's not germane to the amendment. Isn't it irrelevant?
The Chair: The chair would like to rule in favour of the point of order.
May Ms Catterall refocus her debate to the clause at hand?
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, under this act the commission would in fact be responsible for looking at how an employer is or is not meeting the purpose of the act. In other words, what are its hiring practices? If it does not have a representative workforce, what are its hiring practices? Is it making every effort to ensure that there are not systemic barriers? This is the responsibility of the commission under these few lines that the Reform member wishes to eliminate.
So one of the things the commission would have to look at is whether the employer is setting qualifications for employment that discriminate against particular groups who are traditionally disadvantaged in employment. Is the employer therefore using standards of employment that clearly say: I don't want certain kinds of people working for me, and therefore I'm going to set the qualification up here, because I know that will exclude the people I don't want because they're undesirable to be working in my company?
What the Reform Party chooses to do by going along with getting the implementation of the act out of the hands of the commission is to say that it's okay to set those kinds of standards. An employer can set ``best qualified''. In other words, ``best qualified'' is often a justification for cloning; i.e., I want somebody just like me.
To come to a conclusion on this particular amendment and others, this combined with the other Reform proposals would mean an end to employment equity in Canada. It would effectively remove all public leadership, all meaningful tools to give designated group members a fair share of employment opportunities in Canada. It would effectively say: stay where you are in the lowest-paid jobs. This particular amendment would put it back in political hands and out of the hands of an independent commission that has been responsible for over a decade for the protection of human rights in this country.
.2005
This government is committed to implementing its red book promises on equality, it's committed to an independent means of doing that through the commission, and it will do exactly that. It is committed to listening to the voices of Canadians who testified before this committee who said that employment equity is working, but that it still has a long way to go. The vast majority of employers, union organizations, and social action groups applauded the principle of employment equity and applauded finally applying it to the Public Service of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Point of order. I don't know whether everyone's game this evening is to delay things. I'd like to raise this point of order, and say that I will be leaving, because I don't find the game amusing. If the Reform Party members and government members will give their consent, will the chair agree to having a maximum 15-minute discussion on each clause to speed up our discussions?
I know that normally, there is no time limit. I don't know whether the game is to engage in an all-night filibuster. I do not find this amusing. My day started at 7 a.m. I have other things to do. I would ask the chair whether I can move that we take a maximum of 15 minutes to discuss each clause, as is the practice in any deliberating assembly.
Once the time is up, you will call the question, if a vote is required. I don't know what the game is here. I didn't think that the Liberals were going to get involved in a filibuster. There is a filibuster going on here. I accept that. That's democracy. But if that's the case, if committee members want to do a filibuster, with everyone speaking for as long as they can, I would like someone to inform me of this. I will come back tomorrow morning.
So I would move that for each motion.... This evening? First of all, this shows a lack of respect for the officials. We began our meeting at 6:30 p.m. We know that the Reform Party is opposed to this bill. There is a filibuster going on. It was carefully planned. We appreciate their ability to object. They are discovering parliamentary government. Great. Preston Manning must be pleased. Now we would like to know whether the chair finds my motion about a 15-minute time limit in order?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Are you moving that motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: The motion has been moved.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I think there's already a motion on the floor that we're debating, and I would like to debate the motion of Mrs. Hayes following that intervention.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I think I was interrupted by a point of order. I have one more sentence.
The Chair: With the indulgence of the committee, I would like Ms Catterall to conclude with one or two short sentences, please.
Ms Catterall: Yes, Mr. Chair. We are going to reject this motion and the others of the Reform Party that would totally scuttle and end employment equity, and I would move that the question on this amendment now be put.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to debate the motion, as I had said previously, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: I think Mr. Strahl has indicated his interest to debate. I will allow debate of this point.
Ms Catterall: It's not debatable.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, before Ms Catterall even started to speak, I had already mentioned that I would like to debate this motion. I caught your eye, but you wanted to alternate. I was already on the -
The Chair: The Chair saw, Mr. Strahl, and I would request that Ms Catterall withdraw the motion to ask for the vote on the amendment at this point, to allow further debate.
Ms Catterall: I withdraw my motion for five minutes, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: We're trying to debate but having some difficulty in getting members to focus on whether we should.... It's in the definition of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Deciding whether we want to have the Canadian Human Rights Commission be the arbiter and the -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion before us. We must debate the motion. I am asking the chair whether or not the motion is in order. I understand that the committee is the master of its decisions. My interpretation of the Standing Order is that if a majority of committee members decides that they want to assign a 15-minute time limit to the discussion of each clause, that is how we will proceed. So I am asking the chair for guidance. Is the motion in order? You will never have been so sorry to be chairing this committee.
.2010
[English]
The Chair: I have been advised by the clerk that we will allow debate on clause 3 to proceed. At this point, I have taken notice of your interest to propose a motion, and the chair will entertain that motion after debate on clause 3 has been concluded.
Mr. Bevilacqua: If I may seek the guidance of the Chair, I am quite impressed by the interest expressed by the Reform Party in this employment equity issue, or affirmative action as they would refer to it. Since this interest is so overwhelming, perhaps a member can move a motion that speaks to the fact that we will sit as a committee, given the importance and the relevance expressed by the hon. member in the Reform Party, until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration.
This means that if we are to be here for 48 hours, 72 hours or 150 hours, we too understand on this side the importance of this issue and we are certainly willing to cooperate with the Reform Party in the elegant manner in which it has handled this particular issue, until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration.
I look forward to debating every single clause with the hon. member.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): I would like to move that motion, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: I have taken notice of that interest. That can be entertained only after this motion, which I have recognized, and shall be allowed after clause 3. So we will consider that motion after his motion, and at this point I will allow Mr. Strahl to continue debate.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I am torn between trying to answer all of the questions raised by the previous speaker - not the motions - who rambled throughout the entire bill trying to place motive with the Reform Party as to what it is that we do and don't believe, which I think will come out plainly in the debate.... I will resist most of that.
Speaking to the motion of the hon. member of the commission - meaning the Canadian Human Rights Commission - what Ms Hayes has already brought to the attention of the committee is that this establishes, of course, the entirely different thrust of the legislation.
I found it ironic that the current employment equity program that is applied and administered by the minister has been considered a political boondoggle and so on. Because, in fact, the minister, even with this proposed legislation, is still the only one who can administer fines at his or her discretion. So it's still - if that argument was to hold solidly - a political football in that only the minister can apply any teeth to the administration.
But getting back to the commission, what the Reform Party would like to see is the Canadian Human Rights Commission strengthened, but not given the added work of having to look after the employment equity program.
If there's one thing that we would like to see within the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it is the backlog of unresolved cases involving matters of discrimination and so on, which has been growing, and the length of time that has been growing for that commission - from now up to more than a year - to hear a case. We think that the commission should be strengthened. It should deal with those cases, and it could do so best if it doesn't have the added problem of having to administer or ride herd on the entire employment equity program of the federal government.
So, by all means, the equality of all Canadians, the ability to be hired, to be promoted and so on without discrimination is of paramount importance to the Reform Party.
We feel that when people have cases of discrimination, of preferential hiring, of cloning or of whatever it is the member had brought to the attention of the committee, by all means the Canadian Human Rights Commission should deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
The fact that we want to remove the jurisdiction from them doesn't mean that I don't believe in the principles of equality or the idea of fairness, or that I believe that promotion shouldn't be based on merit. And I certainly don't agree that there should be cloning in the hiring department.
But by leaving the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do what it does best.... What it does best is deal with complaints of discrimination, and that's what it should stick with.
.2015
We have talked about this, and some of the witnesses have mentioned it before: every time we add another duty or role to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we will lengthen that period of time that individual complaints will have to wait to be resolved. In Canada now, we have equal pay cases that have been going on for five, six or seven years. We have cases of discrimination that have been going on now for 18 months, and so on.
It just seems to us where to handle what this attempts to be, which is a personnel management scheme, is under the employment minister. That's the way it's been handled till now. The way you handle discrimination cases is under the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As we'll find as we go through the bill, if you mix the two you're going to get into a whole ``schmear'' of problems of conflict of interest, and who's going to ride herd on whom, and whether or not people file complaints to the commission if they're under an employment program, and on and on.
The problems are myriad. The solution is to separate the two. One is to deal with discrimination cases. The other is to deal with personnel management. I shouldn't say never the twain shall meet, but when the twain meet it should be because of a complaint initiated by someone who feels they've been wronged. When it happens that someone has been wronged - I don't disagree with the member, that certainly happens; it happens in Canada, unfortunately, to this day - the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the courts, and the condemnation of parliamentarians, should come down hard on that employer.
But again, it's just a matter of where you administer. Do you want the administration to come through the commission, or do you want the administration to stay within the Department of Employment and Immigration? Then if there is a case that is against the Canadian rights of equal treatment and so on, the Canadian Human Rights Act is the instrument with which to come down.
If we keep it separate, I think we will strengthen the credibility of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We will shorten the time frame that it takes for them to deal with a case, down from a very unreasonable one year to five, six or seven years, depending on the types of cases. I think we will re-establish their credibility with people who are seeking redress for discrimination.
It's interesting that in the estimates, under the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the commission notes the declining number of cases that have been brought before it in the last several years. I think there's a direct correlation between this increased length of time that the commission is taking to deal with these issues and the fact that people are beginning to throw their hands up in the air and saying there's no point in going to the Canadian Human Rights Commission because it takes them forever.
It just appears to us that if you mix the oil and the water here, if you try to do it, you may end up with the worst of both worlds. It's interesting that in the Ontario provincial election right now we have the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario saying that if you elect her, she will reduce the power of the Employment Equity Commission in that province.
Ms Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chair - relevance.
Mr. Strahl: It's interesting that it's not irrelevant, Mr. Chair, in the sense that their legislation had to be exempted from the Ontario Human Rights -
.2020
Ms Catterall: On a point of order, it's irrelevant. We are now talking about a totally different piece of legislation, not just a different section of the legislation.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman -
The Chair: The Chair makes the ruling first before we debate. Please proceed.
Mr. Strahl: The point, Mr. Chairman, is that the Human Rights Commission deals with basic Canadian human rights. That is its job and and it's done a fair job of that over the years. If you try to mix the two - and I used the Ontario example just as an example - you find that you have to exempt the basic Ontario human rights, in this case, from the employment equity program because it won't pass muster under the Ontario human rights.
To translate that onto the federal scene, I have the same concern about the use of the commission instead of the use of the department. The commission will end up having to be judge and executioner and arbiter of all things and it won't be able to do its job, which is to look after basic Canadian human rights.
That's the basis of the argument. It has nothing to do with trying to do away with human rights. It has to do with strengthening the human rights section by taking the control away from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and letting it deal with what it does best.
That is basically the point I was trying to make. It has nothing to do with wanting to do away with human rights. It has to do with strengthening human rights and a change of administration.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
Is there further debate on this?
Ms Catterall: The question.
The Chair: Let's allow Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Chairman, just to carry on from some of the points raised, by both my Reform colleague and my Liberal colleague, I think part of the issue of who it is that administers this goes back to even the problems that we've seen at the back end of the bill, where there was a conflict of interest depending on who filed a complaint with the human rights commission. I think there was a problem even as we debated the bill, whether a complaint should come from an employee or the employer or through the employment equity compliance provisions or straight to the human rights commission as a human rights issue. That has been a matter of debate. It will continue to be a problem with this bill, I feel, depending on how those complaints are brought forward.
Perhaps to strengthen some of the argument as to why it should not be the commission that is the one in charge of the administration of this act, I feel I should address some of the concerns that my Liberal colleague brought forward, which I found quite interesting and somewhat offensive in different ways. For instance, she made the point that we would go towards claiming this as an affirmative action program because of other amendments within this grand scheme of ours. I would actually want to remind her of a ruling - there's a lot about our program that parallels the American program.
I would put to my colleague that employment equity.... I hear my colleague saying they're glad to hear that. I find that interesting, because in that other jurisdiction they are very much in the process of realizing the error of their ways and retracting employment equity legislation within their jurisdiction.
I have some information here that has a parallel. Lynn Bevan has noted legal parallels between the two systems. She describes similar legislative and regulatory frameworks and predicts Canada's equity programs will be safe from constitutional challenge because of subsection 15(2) of the Charter.
.2025
The very thing that's in our charter will prevent us from doing what the Americans are able to do in realizing that this program is not working.
In that sense, here's someone saying it'll work here even though it goes down the tube there. I find that worrisome.
To go back to this ``affirmative action'' term, much of what we have here comes out of the Abella commission. Judge Rosalie Abella referred extensively to the American system of affirmative action in that commission's report, Equality in Employment. The commissioners referred in it to the emotional and intellectual resistance to the American term ``affirmative action'' and suggested we use ``employment equity'' to replace it. Does that sound like an honest thing? Here we have my colleagues saying we want to do something subversive, shall we say, in calling something by the term it was meant to be called. But at the beginning someone said: whoops, this may cause some problems and resistance in the Canadian public.
I can quote what the commission said at that time:
- No great principle is sacrificed in exchanging phrases. Ultimately it matters little whether in
Canada we call this process employment equity or affirmative action, so long as we understand
that what we mean by both terms is that our employment practice is designed to eliminate
discriminatory areas and to provide in a meaningful way equitable opportunities in
employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could you tell us how much latitude the chair intends to give the speaker, before calling the vote on my motion? I would respectfully suggest that she be asked to complete her remarks, given that this is her second intervention, although I must say that it is just as interesting as the first one was. I would hope that the committee will deal with my motion.
[English]
The Chair: I would appeal to the committee members to please focus your debate.
Mrs. Hayes: I am focusing my debate, certainly in terms of the debate that resulted from my motion. I haven't strayed from that. I appeal to the chair and my colleagues to understand that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I would not want to have to quote you - because you did stray a little - but there is no doubt that all the comments are interesting. I would suggest that you accept my motion, Mr. Chairman.
I think you will find that a majority of our colleagues are ready for the question.
[English]
The Chair: Please proceed.
Mrs. Hayes: I feel I am debating what has come forward on the motion I proposed, so I think I am within the realms of what I should be doing. It wasn't me who originally brought this up, so I can certainly debate what the subject-matter is.
I want to be clear on the fact that some of what has been said by my colleague is in fact not as she would present it but actually the opposite. We are simply giving the name to this act, what it perhaps could have originally been except people were afraid to admit the truth at that point in time, for whatever reason.
Perhaps another thing I would find, and quote from the debate actually, was a term of phrase called ``Fanatical Emphasis on the Merit Principle''. That's what I believe I heard.
Certainly I find it amazing that, as I recall, when the minister was here he in fact said this act fulfilled what was necessary to achieve a merit principle. It fell under that definition. Yet now, because we feel that merit is a very important part of all employment programs, we want to bring this legislation back to fit within the definition of merit. We are indeed being accused of putting a fanatical emphasis on that.
.2030
I would put to the committee and to the Canadian people that they in fact would enjoy a fanatical emphasis on merit. I think Canadians expect that within the workplace. I think Canadians of all races and all abilities would like to feel they are in the position they're in because of the qualifications they bring to that position.
Perhaps in this bill and in all our considerations and deliberations we could address the issue that hiring and promotion should be done on the principle of merit and fully make merit the supreme choice within promotion or hiring practices. I think we would go a long way toward making this a better piece of legislation.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: I'll now entertain the motion of Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: This must be clear for everyone. In accordance with the principle that the committee is master of itself, I would move, that with the agreement of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the chair call the vote on each clause after a maximum of five minutes' debate. Shall I read it again, Mr. Chairman?
I will reread the motion. I move, in accordance with the principle the committee is the master of itself, and subject to the agreement of the majority of members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, that the chair call the vote on each clause after a maximum of five minutes' debate.
That's really one of the finest motions I've ever written, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Just for clarification, is the intent of the mover to allow a total of five minutes for the debate or a total of five minutes for each speaker to debate?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: No, no. There would be a maximum five-minute discussion on each clause, after which you would call the vote, if necessary. So the suggestion is to limit the debate to a maximum of five minutes on each clause.
[English]
The Chair: I'd just like to be fair to the group. If we have a total of five minutes, we have to have a formula as to how we will divide the five minutes among speakers.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Four minutes for me and one minute for the Reform Party.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: As I'm hearing this, this is for each clause, so if there's -
Mr. Ménard: Clause by clause.
Mrs. Hayes: For each clause. So if there are four or five amendments to a clause, they will all have to fit within a five-minute time limit.
The Chair: Is that the intent of the mover?
Mr. Ménard: No.
[Translation]
Since I'm a great democrat, five minutes' debate on each amendment. It could have been ten, but I thought five was reasonable.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I'd like to move an amendment to that motion. I move that we allow five hours for each amendment to the bill.
The Chair: I think the chair will rule that out of order, because it defeats the very motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: That's out of order.
.2035
[English]
The Chair: Order, please. I think the chair cannot accept the motion because the amendment defeats the very motion. It is not allowable by any rules of order.
Mr. Strahl: If I could debate.
The Chair: Debate, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: First of all, Mr. Chairman, maybe you could clarify this to me. Why are you accepting motions written in one language submitted to the clerk? I don't get a copy of them, they're not translated - and everything is fine. When I submitted them all in order and typed out on a piece of paper, they were out of order. Why are we accepting this but not accepting mine?
The Chair: The chair did not rule on your reading the English motion into the debate. I pleaded with you. You are again creating a decision of a chair that the chair never made to begin with.
Proceed on debate on the motion.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, Standing Order 116 says that in a standing, special or legislative committee the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
This is a standing committee. It says in the Standing Orders that we should be able to speak to a motion - as long as we're not being repetitious or irrelevant - an unlimited number of times, and with unlimited length of speeches. My understanding of committee work, which differentiates us from the House of Commons, is the ability to do just that.
In committee we can wax a little bit more eloquent than we can in the House of Commons, where you have 10-minute chunks. I don't see how we can fulfil the spirit of this particular standing order that entitles members in committee - even if government side doesn't like it - to a thorough debate, an unlimited number of times and an unlimited length of speeches. That's what we're supposed to be entitled to. I think it would be a fair travesty of the committee work if we were to depart from that. So that's my point on that debate.
The Chair: Yes, the debate is...[Inaudible].
Mr. Ménard, on a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: In keeping with the spirit of co-operation toward the Reform Party, if it were to put forward an amendment, I, as mover of the motion, would be prepared to accept it. The Reform Party would like to see five minutes' debate for each recognized political party; I, as mover, would be prepared to accept the amendment. This would mean there would be a total of 15 minutes' debate on each amendment.
I think that Ms Hayes, who teaches mathematics, has a good sense of time. I would be quite prepared to accept the five-minute time limit for each recognized political party. I believe this amendment has come from the very core of the Reform Party, and I am prepared to accept it.
[English]
The Chair: In the spirit of cooperation, can we hear agreement to that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion?
Mrs. Hayes: Was that a proposed amendment?
The Chair: No, it is a suggestion. It is not an amendment.
Mr. Strahl: The offer being -
The Chair: It is an amendment to have a five-minute limit on a given clause for every speaker, from each of the three political parties in committee. Is that right?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Five minutes for each party. That's a generous offer, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually surprising myself.
[English]
I hope we remember that.
Ms Catterall: On a point of order, it might help the Reform Party members to clarify their thinking if they realize we have over 180 amendments at 5 minutes an amendment, which would give them over 15 hours of talking time before this bill is out. I think that's enough to express any opinion one might want to express. And that's not considering other motions on approving clauses and subamendments, and so on. I don't know how long they need to get a point of view across.
.2040
The Chair: Further debate on the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Yes. Besides my original protest about the fact that I don't think the Standing Orders allow us to restrict the rights of people to speak as long as they'd like and as many times as they'd like, it does also appear to me that there are going to be some clauses that are going to pass possibly without any debate. For instance, the hon. member already spoke on one amendment for probably ten or fifteen minutes herself.
So there are some clauses that will have heated debate, some clauses that will have no debate. But to specify that it can be only five minutes per clause means that some won't get a proper hearing and others will get maybe too much. So I think it's not the way to go. I don't even know that it would be a time saver.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: May I explain my motion, Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chair: Just a second, please. The debate is being heard and I would like to hear from other people who would like to debate the motion before us. You had made your offer. Are there any other debates on the motion before I turn again to the mover of the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Out of order... I think the chair must first tell the committee... Apparently it's been left up to the Reform Party to interpret the Standing Orders. Does the chair find the motion in order? I think that is what we need to know before any debate. If you find the motion in order, I understand that you will allow some debate, and then call the vote on the motion. I think the motion is out of order, but I would like the chair to make a clear ruling on this.
[English]
The Chair: The chair rules that the motion is in order. If there is a standing -
Mr. Bevilacqua: Call for the question.
The Chair: Just a second. The chair is making a ruling first. The ruling must be completed before the question is placed.
The chair rules that the motion is in order because there is a standing parliamentary tradition that the committee is master of itself. On that note, the motion therefore is allowed.
Mr. Strahl: A point of order.
The Chair: The question is asked. It must now be put to a vote. Those in favour of the motion? Can you please read the motion again?
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee:
- Moved, in accordance with the principle that the committee is the master of itself, that with
the agreement of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the
chair call a vote on each clause after a maximum of five minutes' debate.
The Chair: You have heard the motion. Those in favour of the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Debate.
The Chair: The debate is concluded. The motion has been put to a vote. It is too late for debate. The motion now put to a vote.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote please.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
The Chair: I entertain, as noted earlier, the motion from Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood: Yes, I have a motion as well that I'd like to put on the floor, Mr. Chairman. My colleague had suggested earlier that because the Reform Party seems to find this bill very important and so do we, it would be I think in the best interests of the committee and the government to make sure this bill is passed as quickly as possible. I know the government wouldn't want to interrupt the Reform Party's thought process, and that is why I would like to propose that the committee hearing be extended until completion of clause-by-clause.
The Chair: So would the clerk call the motion? Can you repeat it for the committee?
The Clerk: Moved by Mr. Wood that the meeting of the committee be continued until completion of study of the bill.
The Chair: You've heard the motion.
Mr. Wood: Clause-by-clause.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Am I to understand that my honourable colleague, who I would guess is about 50 years of age, would like us to spend the whole evening passing this bill? Is that what the motion means? My colleague certainly knows that we could stay here until 1:00 a.m. Is that the intent of the motion?
[English]
The Chair: For clarification.
.2045
Mr. Wood: That's exactly the sense of the motion. I applaud my colleague for his great sense of humour. Obviously he is a good judge of age, as well. I'm in pretty good shape, but I'm willing to hang in here right to the end.
The Chair: And stay at 50.
Mr. Wood: And stay at 50.
The Chair: Is there debate on the motion?
Mr. Strahl: I appeal to the chair's sense of fair play. It's interesting that we don't have time to break for an hour to sift those other amendments in and we don't have time to have any accommodation of some of the other points we have brought up. We've chosen to overrule the Standing Order which says that normally we'd do it. Those decisions continue, but now that debate must go ahead I don't even know what's happened to my amendments. They've gone into the black hole, I guess.
It's a good thing to sit all night, which I'm prepared to do, but why is it okay to do that and yet we can't take an hour to bring those other amendments up to speed? I just don't understand the decision to do that. Why is the government not allowing those English amendments into the record?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like all committee members to know that I am in excellent physical condition, given that I am in my early thirties. Would government members agree that if, around 11:00 p.m., we find that we have done a significant amount of work, we could meet again tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. in a good mood? The idea of trying to do everything tonight seems like quite a challenge that could take its toll on our health. I'm not sure that this is a wise decision.
The mover of the motion should agree that if we have not completed our work by about 11:00 p.m., we should meet again tomorrow morning to continue our discussion in good spirits on all sides.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I think my colleague just made a motion.
The Chair: No, he's debating and suggesting.
Mrs. Hayes: He did say he moves something.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You are hearing voices!
[English]
The Chair: No, I cannot entertain that motion, because another motion is now before us, unless it is an amendment to the motion.
Mrs. Hayes: What motion are we debating, so I know what I'm talking about?
The Chair: Order. Could the clerk please read the motion?
The Clerk: Is this Mr. Wood's motion?
The Chair: Yes.
The Clerk: That the committee continue to sit until clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is concluded.
Mrs. Hayes: Thank you for that clarification. I do actually find it very interesting that such a motion would be forwarded immediately after those members agreed to a five-minute limit on each clause. I hear them saying this bill is so important, and it is important...I think it is very important to the Canadian people, and it should be very important to this commmitee. But certainly this committee must recognize there's a certain conflict there. On one hand they say it's so important they want to stay here until their eyelids droop, which may or may not happen, but -
Mr. Bevilacqua: We're all nighthawks. You wouldn't understand.
Mrs. Hayes: Oh, okay - but they refuse to give proper weight to the items that are in it. That five-minute limit...they may think some of our amendments aren't what they'd like to see, but certainly we have a Bloc colleague who's put forward amendments, and heavens, the department has put forward amendments, it's my understanding. Those too are limited to five-minute debate. Does that seem to put the proper weight and importance on what we're dealing with in this thing?
Not only are we rushing it through, we put a limit on, but we're probably not going to be at our best in four or five hours, or whatever it is. I question the government motivation in saying this is important to them when they proceed with those kinds of directives. I do find that very, very interesting.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to speak to that motion, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: You can do that on special request.
.2050
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to amend my colleague's motion to say, if we're going to sit, that we break every three hours for a one-hour break - to add the words ``except for every three hours, we break for a one-hour break''.
The Chair: The amendment has been noted by the clerk.
I think the chair is sensing a spirit of camaraderie emerging. I can see smiles in the hearts of many. The member for the Bloc has made a generous offer of perhaps up to 11 p.m. and the Reform Party has indicated perhaps a break after every three hours of debate.
I wonder if in fact the members of the committee from all sides would be disposed that, in the spirit of camaraderie, we hold the motion, and therefore the amendment, in abeyance on unanimous consent at this time and proceed as we had started, guided by the motion of Mr. Ménard as we have adopted. Do I have the unanimous consent of -
Mr. Wood: No.
The Chair: - or can I ask the government side to withdraw the motion?
Mr. Wood: No, I'm not withdrawing it; I have no intention of doing it.
The Chair: Well, the chair has made a request, and of course there is -
Ms Catterall.
Ms Catterall: I have no intention of using five minutes to debate your question, Mr. Chair, but the fact is, the Reform Party members came in here tonight determined to block any movement on this bill, and they made that absolutely clear. They are organized to sit all night, and they're going to force the rest of us to do so. So if that's what they want...[Inaudible - Transeditor].
The Chair: I therefore entertain the amendment. Can you read the amendment to the motion?
The Clerk: The amendment to the motion of Mr. Wood is that every three hours the committee take a break for one hour.
The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to debate that.
The Chair: Yes, please.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I see we have almost two conflicting requests here and in the previous amendment. One is that we're going to speak for a maximum of five minutes for each amendment, as I understand. We also have this rather slow way of voting we're going through, and we have some other problems as well. I don't know how long it's going to take, but it is going to take a considerable amount of time. I'm wondering about the odds. Nobody said it was going to be easy. I guess the question is....
The Chair: May I have the order of the committee? Clarifying from the clerk...does the motion of Mr. Ménard as adopted refer to five minutes per clause or per amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Per clause, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Five minutes per clause - that's what has been officially adopted as recorded in the minutes. I wanted to clarify that. Proceed.
Mr. Strahl: The clarification was that it's five minutes per clause?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Ménard, you've created a monster.
The Chair: Unless we can have unanimous consent to make it five minutes per amendment....
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Well, the motion has been carried; proceed with the debate on the subamendment, please.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, it appears we're going to be here for a little while. Again, the first part of the motion that I amended...it read what?
The Chair: Will the clerk read the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Not just the amendment, but -
The Clerk: The motion of Mr. Wood that the committee continue to sit until it has concluded completion of clause-by-clause....
.2055
Mr. Strahl: As I see it, Mr. Chairman, there may be a couple of problems with this. Besides the obvious medical problems Mr. Ménard brought up, tomorrow morning we do have to deal with the estimates by the justice minister and by the chairman of the Human Rights Commission. That occurs fairly early in the morning. We may not be done this at that time and that may be a concern of the committee. So that's one point - because we do have to finish the estimates by the end May - and that may be difficult to do.
The other thing we are facing is this whole thing of whether we're going to sit right through. I don't know how many clauses there are, so I don't know if it's physically possible -
An hon. member: There are 45.
Mr. Strahl: - to finish these in time or not. But I guess what I'm wondering about is if we push it right through until we bump Mr. Rock and Mr. Yalden; if that's wise. Then the second thing is, is it wise to sit for more than three hours at a stretch without getting an opportunity to stretch your legs? I'm thinking, of course, strictly of Mr. Chairman here at this time.
The Chair: Thank you for your generosity.
Mr. Strahl: It may prove to be a problem.
The Chair: For debate on the amendment, Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes: I'm not sure if this is debate or a point of clarification.
Whatever happened to the motions put forward by the Reform Party that are not translated? Are they part of this debate in line and will be they be included? I believe if the clerk is to check, we have probably already have missed one or two of them, if they are going to be done in order of the clause-by-clause. I would ask the chair if they are indeed going to be debated in the order in which they happen. To this point it hasn't. I ask direction of the chair on that.
The Chair: My guideline from the clerk...after we are done with these procedural motions, we will be considering the amendments submitted earlier by the Bloc, then by the government, the Reform, the government, and the government motion, and a committee motion, if it deems to introduce a motion...any member of the committee.
Mrs. Hayes: But then do we not have motions put forward to the clerk that would be interspersed with the ones that...? What you have just referred to seems to be the one that were...
The Chair: You mean the motion in English only?
Mrs. Hayes: The motion is in English only?
The Chair: Unfortunately it was introduced at a time when the mover of the motion is not allowed by the rules of order to introduce such motion. At that time there was...
Mrs. Hayes: No, that was not the motion, if I remember.
Ms Catterall: Let the chair finish his explanation, please.
The Chair: Mrs. Hayes, I thought you were referring to the motions introduced at a time when Mr. Strahl was not properly documented as a sitting member of the committee. Now if not, what were you referring to?
Mrs. Hayes: No, I was referring to the disposition or the giving of our amendments, in English only, to the clerk. I understand no other decision was made. Those should be done in order with the other motions that we have hard copy of. That would be my understanding as what we should be doing in committee procedure. If that is indeed the case, I believe - and the clerk can correct me on this - we probably have already missed one or two, and we should be doing them in order.
Again, I ask for clarification from the chair as to when those motions, given in English only to the clerk, will be addressed by this committee.
Ms Catterall: On a point of order.... Could we proceed with Mr. Ménard's motion first? This is a new item of business.
Mrs. Hayes: I would beg to differ in the sense that this indeed is the order of motions that we should be addressing. I think it's very pertinent to what we do next, for example.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We have adopted my motion. I think it was supported by the majority.
[English]
The Chair: Please, before you take the floor, get the attention of the chair. Sometimes the chair has to consult with the clerk from time to time.
The clerk has just advised me that in fact that motion, when introduced...the chair threw them out of order and the ruling was challenged. The ruling of the chair was sustained, and therefore in effect those motions had not been introduced. Now I would say, though, that at any time - on advice from the chair - they can be reintroduced; at any appropriate time.
.2100
Mr. Strahl: What happened to the amendments? Did they go in the garbage? Do I get them back?
The Chair: The amendments still physically exist, but unfortunately they have not been formally accepted by the committee. We debated that issue. The chair made a ruling, which was sustained by the committee, and the committee proceeded with consideration of clause 2, which was carried. We are now in the midst of clause 3.
My advice to the members of the Reform Party is - of course, it is my interpretation of the procedure - do indicate your amendment at the time of any relevant consideration of any clause.
To allow an orderly process of consideration, the clerk has given me the sequential arrangement of the amendments from all political parties. If this procedure is not followed, then we will allow consideration of whoever makes the first motion on the amendment, and the chair will exercise discretion in whom to recognize first.
Before us is Mr. Strahl's amendment. Mrs. Hayes, have you concluded debate on the amendment?
Mrs. Hayes: Yes, that's fine.
The Chair: Is there any other debate on the amendment?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, if we are to take a break every three hours or so, I'm certainly willing to take the first break right now. I'd just like to throw that in to show the spirit of cooperation that I know the chair is looking for.
The Chair: Mr. Strahl has concluded debate on the amendment. Now the amendment is put to a vote.
Subamendment negatived
Motion agreed to
The Chair: We shall proceed with further consideration of clause 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an amendment concerning references to employees. The amendment is numbered C003-003.11a, and it is the last one drafted by the research services. It would read as follows: ``employee'' means person employed by an employer who is ordinarily required to work at least one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work and includes a person employed under a contract of employment." The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that the definition of an employee includes part-time workers and people employed under a contract.
[English]
Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to that amendment for a second.
I want to thank the members of the Bloc for their close attention to the bill, to testimony heard by the committee, and to the purpose of the billt. We recognize the sensitivity of the Bloc to certain concerns, as Mr. Ménard has just said, the labour-employee perspective, also obtaining the broadest coverage and impact of the most open methods of providing information to the public.
.2105
We appreciate the attempt by the Bloc to improve the current intent of the bill. Generally, of course we are unable to agree with the particular wording proposed by the Bloc, but on several issues, Mr. Chairman, we agree in principle and are willing to respond.
We agree in principle with clause 3. We agree that the definition of an employee should cover the broadest definition reasonable and include those who work part-time according to a flexible system. But we do not agree to put this in the bill itself. We feel it should go in the regulations, where there can be slight differences of terminology to adapt to the conditions of the public sector and the private sector.
Also, moving to clause 13, we agree that employers' plans should be accessible to the CHRC, but the CHRC already has access and we feel we do not want to impose an unneeded administrative requirement on employers.
On clause 14, we agree that labour and employee representatives play an important role, but we do not agree there should be joint responsibility, particularly where there is no system for joint enforcement.
In clause 17, we agree it's important to make public the information on employers' qualitative measures and employee consultation. Therefore we agree the government proposal is going to be even stronger. We make the inclusion of a description of those measures a requirement for employers' reports.
On clause 19, we agree that employers' reports should be available to Parliament and to the public, but this is already provided for and we do not need an amendment. We also do not want to incur greater cost than necessary.
On clause 25, we agree that tribunal members need to be well qualified -
Mrs. Hayes: I have a point of order. We're not on topic here. I believe we're on clause 3.
Mr. Wood: We'll get to clause 3 in just a moment.
Mrs. Hayes: I think we started at clause 3 and perhaps we could stay there.
The Chair: Would the member please focus his debate to clause 3?
Mr. Wood: I will.
Mr. Strahl: I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, who is going to be actually timing the five-minute thing now?
The Chair: The clerk.
Mr. Strahl: Do you have a stopwatch?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Strahl: So you'll bellow when it's five minutes so we know we're coming up? Thank you.
The Chair: Well, it is five minutes per clause. Therefore, in fairness and with your permission, the chair will divide the 5 into three parts of 1.66 minutes.
Mr. Strahl: I'm wondering, because he's already spoken much longer than that.
Mr. Wood: I'll just wrap up.
The Chair: Quickly, please. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.
Mr. Wood: Therefore we propose an amendment on the clause to ensure that the selection of tribunal members will take employment equity and expertise into consideration.
On clause 3, the definition of a visible minority, we do not agree. It does not serve to clarify the definition, therefore it's not accepted.
On clause 20, the committee has heard from the Treasury Board and the PSC about the nature of reporting and the availability of information.
Mrs. Hayes: I have a point of order.
The Chair: A point of order has been raised.
Mrs. Hayes: I ask the chair to rule on the inadmissibility of the discussion here. Thank you.
The Chair: Well, the chair is having a little difficulty making a conclusion until after he has heard all the presentations. To rule on relevancy is sometimes difficult, but I will try to use some imagination. Can the member please refocus the debate?
Mr. Wood: Just to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, as we said, we agree in principle with clause 3. We agree the definition of an employee should cover the broadest definition reasonable and include those who work part-time according to a flexible system, but we do not agree to put this in the bill itself. We feel it should go in the regulations, where there can be slight differences of terminology to adapt to the conditions in the public sector and also the private sector.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
Mrs. Hayes, are you signalling to speak to the amendment?
Mrs. Hayes: Certainly I would ask how much time I have to speak, now that my hon. colleague has gone all over the map with his discussion.
The Chair: Actually, we have 44 seconds, but because of the point of order, the chair would allow at least, of the total 5 minutes, 1.66 minutes, just to be fair.
Mrs. Hayes: Okay, thank you. I would like to address this and perhaps ask for a little more clarification as to the use of regulation and when those regulations will be struck in regard to this bill.
It would be a question to the government. Then if there was any notification, review or comment on those regulations by the committee that's in charge of reviewing this bill, perhaps we could have some clarification on that, given there's time within this five-minute limit.
.2110
The other thing is this. At present, what is understood by the term ``employee'' as opposed to having all these definitions that have been added by my honourable colleague? If he feels these further definitions are required, what is it that he's adding to? Perhaps I could ask the department to clarify that at this time. Is this a large departure from what's there now?
The Chair: May I call the attention of the witnesses? A question has been posed by Mrs. Hayes. Would the witness care to provide the answer?
Ms Stinson: I think two questions were asked about regulations. One is, when might they be introduced? The process intended here is that once this bill is finalized and passed into law, with whatever amendments, as the case may be, there will be a process for drafting amendments, pre-publishing in the Canada Gazette, and undertaking consultations with all affected parties. Therefore after this, if changes need to be made to the regulations, changes would be made in there. After that, they would go through the regular procedure for Order in Council -
Mr. Michael Dixon (Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Human Resources Development): Passage.
Ms Stinson: - passage. Therefore that's the way in which those regulations would be passed.
Mr. Hayes: Who gives approval to regulations?
Mr. Dixon: It's the Governor in Council, under clause 38.
Mr. Hayes: Okay, so it never comes back to the committee.
Mr. Dixon: That's right. Basically, in this bill Parliament is delegating to the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations covering certain matters in the bill. This is done by the executive. Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette. But it doesn't come back to Parliament.
Mr. Hayes: Are regulations attached to the Employment Equity Act that now exists?
Mr. Dixon: Yes. The current act has regulations primarily concerned with reporting requirements for employers and certain definitions of terms.
Mr. Hayes: This wouldn't be a departure from regulations in a definition of this type. The definition of ``employee'' as it now exists - does it differ substantially from what is being introduced here?
Mr. Dixon: The current act doesn't define ``employee''. Basically, it relies on the common law test for who is an employee. Within the regulations, though, we have identified certain categories of employees for reporting purposes - how employers might report on permanent, full-time; permanent, part-time; and temporary. That's the extent to which the regulations deal with defining categories of employees.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): I'm looking at the interpretation clause, which is all of clause 3 of this bill. You list aboriginal people; Canadian workforce, meaning all persons in Canada of a working age who are willing and able to work; Commission; and compliance officer. You have addressed some, but not all, of the workforce. You single out members of designated groups, meaning women, aboriginal peoples, those with disabilities and visible minorities. You talk in areas of immigration - ``the Minister'' means the Minister of Employment and Immigration. You relate the term ``panel''. You again talk about persons with disabilities. It goes on and on.
.2115
I'm wondering why the bill concentrates on such a narrow group of people when in fact the interim employee is not included in any of those terms. What would be your interpretation of having that included?
First of all, why wasn't it?
Mr. Dixon: Well, who would be covered as an employee? Because of the different types of employment situations or relationships that exist in both the public and private sectors....
In the private sector an employee is generally part of a relationship that arises from a contract. In the public sector it's not a contractual relationship; it's a relationship that arises pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.
We have different employment situations that....
Who would be captured by this? We thought it would be appropriate to leave this to regulations. There may be categories of employees, for instance, summer students working on a school break or casuals who work less than a certain number of weeks per year. It may not be appropriate to cover them under the act in terms of the obligations and given the very short duration of their employment.
There may be other types of employment situations, so this has been left to the regulations to sort out who would be appropriate to cover.
Mr. Hanger: Who will judge that -
The Chair: The chair would like to make an observation. We passed a motion that we have a limit of five minutes of debate for each clause.
Now, of course, the chair could interpret debate as not asking the witnesses, but at the same time the rules of Parliament tell the Speaker or the chair that any proceedings that transpire for a period of time are part of debate.
Now, if Reform - and I have been flexible in allowing that minute - will use this approach to lengthen debate on a clause, defeating the very intent of the motion we passed, the chair will be compelled to make a ruling that we will take it into account in the total consideration of time.
Mr. Hanger: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that is an abuse of exercise of your power, if I might add.
The Chair: Not at all.
Mr. Hanger: If these are reasonable questions to ask these witnesses, then they should be allowed to answer the question.
The Chair: They are being allowed within the limits adopted by the committee. The committee is master of itself.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, you said debate as far as the questions are concerned, put by one party.
These witnesses have the duty to answer the questions.
The Chair: Would the clerk please read the clause as we adopted it.
[Translation]
The Clerk: ``In accordance with the principle that the committee is master of itself, and subject to the agreement of the majority of members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the chair shall call the vote on each clause after a maximum of five minutes' debate.''
[English]
The Chair: And the chair has exercised some patience in the spirit of camaraderie -
Mr. Hanger: Point of order.
The Chair: - but one cannot use the argument of abuse by abusing the system itself.
Mr. Hanger: I would like an English interpretation of that particular question. I don't believe it is clear enough.
The Chair: Would the interpreter please...?
I heard the English translation.
Mr. Ménard: The translation is also available.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, all motions are to be in both official languages. That was set out by yourself at the beginning of the session.
The Chair: No, I.... You keep creating a ruling that I did not make. That is a fiction in the mind of the Reform. Of course, you can argue on the basis of a fiction and we will be here until eternity.
Please.
Mr. Hanger: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that's why you did not accept the motions of Reform put forward in the first place, was it not?
The Chair: The chair made a ruling because the mover of the motion was not a member of the committee at the time the motion was moved. How many times will the chair repeat that ruling?
I did ask, however, to have it in two languages by way of courtesy. But then, when the Reform argued on the basis of some points, then the chair has to be strict and apply the rules of order.
.2120
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee would not accept - and it was the chair, I'm advised - Mr. Strahl's motions because they were not in both official languages. The complainant was Mr. Ménard.
The Chair: I do not want to revisit this issue. The chair will accept a motion in English or French or in both languages. How can the chair be more clear?
Mr. Hanger: I believe you're very clear there, Mr. Chairman. I would advise then that all the amendments we submitted earlier should be in order.
Ms Catterall: They weren't ruled out of order for that reason.
The Chair: As I said, any of your amendments, even in one language, can be introduced at any time. The chair has made that ruling. You are getting wrong advice.
Mr. Hanger: Why were they ruled out of order?
The Chair: Excuse me, the chair will not be in debate with members of the committee for the rest of the evening. That is not the intent of the committee. This is a proceeding on the bill.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, on a point of order.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Catterall: May I ask you to invoke the motion approved earlier this day by this committee as to how it wished to proceed and now call the question on the clause.
The Chair: Shall the amendment as proposed by the Bloc carry?
Mr. Hanger: What was the motion again, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: This time I will allow it, but please listen as the chair makes a comment. I will allow it but there is a limit to patience, I'd just like to advise members of the committee.
Please, read the motion again.
The Clerk: That clause 3 be amended by adding immediately after line 10 on page 2 the following:
- ``employee'' means person employed by an employer who is ordinarily required to work at
least one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work and includes a person
employed under a contract of employment.
[Translation]
The Clerk: It is moved that section 3 be amended by adding immediately after line 10 on page 2 the following:
- ``employee'' means person employed by an employer who is ordinarily required to work at
least one-third of the normal period for persons doing similar work and includes a person
employed under a contract of employment.
Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc has other amendments but I want to raise a point for reasons of consistency.
The amendment on visible minorities is withdrawn. We are still dealing with clause 3.
So the amendment on visible minorities is withdrawn in view of the observations of the legal counsel concerning the definition of the word "caucasian". As far as we are concerned, that completes clause 3. The amendment in question is C003-002.32a.
[English]
The Chair: I understand. Is there any further amendment to clause 3?
Mr. Hanger: I have a point of order here that hasn't been addressed, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: What is the point of order?
.2125
Mr. Hanger: It involves the asking and answering of questions by the witnesses.
The Chair: The chair would like to make a ruling in light of his observation that questions to the witnesses constitute part of the debate.
Mr. Hanger: Under what authority?
The Chair: That is the interpretation of the chair. If you would like to challenge the ruling of the chair, you may do so.
Mr. Hanger: I do.
The Chair: The ruling of the chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? Those in favour of the ruling of the chair being sustained say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chair: Those against this say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chair: The ruling of the chair has been sustained.
Mr. Hanger: I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Please let it be recorded.
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Before I entertain that, I think we started this committee on a very excellent base of really goodwill. What we are seeing here at the conclusion of our time of effort and endeavour is that we are really engaged in so much procedural debate.
I appeal to the members of the committee to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. On that note, I would like, with your concurrence, to have a ten-minute recess at this time.
.2146
The Chair: The committee will resume its proceedings.
Before we proceed, I would like to seek unanimous consent that we excuse Nancy Holmes, one of our research staff, from our presence. I hope I have unanimous consent for that.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: On that note, your chair has talked to each of the political parties and made a suggestion to have unanimous consent that we set aside the motion we had just passed on time limit and now agree to a five-minute debate for each political party on each clause. Do we have unanimous consent for that?
Mr. Hanger: Could you clarify the question?
The Chair: That we will allow, on unanimous consent, 5 minutes for each political party on each clause, a total of 15 minutes for each clause.
Mr. Hanger: Does this include the questioning of the witnesses and the answers?
The Chair: Again, I made a ruling that is part of the debate. However, again, with the unanimous consent on using reasonable time - and I believe it can be done - I will seek unanimous consent to give it a chance, to allow it to be not part of the debate on the condition that it will be reasonable, and the chair will make a determination of reasonableness; to proceed in a spirit of camaraderie and goodwill.
Mr. Hanger: I won't give unanimous consent on that point, Mr. Chair, the reason being that, first, I believe it doesn't give a parliamentarian ample opportunity to ask questions, to lay groundwork, receive answers, and I don't believe we should be restricted to that limit.
Mr. Chairman, when the Liberals across the way feel that way - I don't think they do - and may not even use their time.... However, I believe on this side, as Reform Party critics, as Reform Party opposition members, we have the obligation to question this bill at length. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give unanimous consent on this thought, because I believe we have the obligation to question these witnesses and receive answers.
The Chair: Actually, there has not been any formal motion. The chair has made a friendly offer to all members of the committee, and so in a sense this is a very informal discussion, and I think it's worth it. That is why I'm reacting immediately. There has not been any formal motion. The chair has taken that initiative, but if we cannot seek unanimous consent on that understanding, there is no need even to put forward the motion.
Then we will be constrained to proceed, as we have moved earlier, and the chair will make the ruling accordingly and remind the members of the committee that we have placed a limit of 5 minutes per clause. I think my suggestion is to make it a total of 15 minutes per clause.
Now, I see your point. Might the time to question witnesses be included? I said I am prepared to seek unanimous consent not to include it in debate, if you decided to make it the basis for your debate. The chair wants to proceed on that basis, but I have to have in return a spirit of goodwill on the part of everybody, not any particular member of the committee or any particular party.
.2150
So on that note, what is the disposition of Mr. Hanger?
Mr. Strahl: I think, Mr. Chairman, I see it a little bit like putting a thumbtack in your boot and then asking if you'd like to pull it part way out.
I didn't agree with the first one that limited debate to five minutes per clause. Certainly it would be a small improvement, but it still doesn't get to the crux of the issue, as Mr. Hanger said, which is that we should have the time we desire to question witnesses and to debate issues, especially on some of these longer clauses where there are going to be several amendments. It's not even per amendment; it's per clause. It's just really very restrictive, and I don't think it's in the best interest of Canadians that we restrict debate at all on the amendments.
The Chair: The chair is in the hands of the committee. If we can be reasonable as to the time being proposed to the witnesses, I would like the members to give it a trial for the next half hour.
Mr. Hanger: We have legal counsel here, I understand.
The Chair: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Hanger: I would like them to offer an opinion as to whether the chair has exceeded his authority in limiting my ability as a member of Parliament to question these witnesses and to receive adequate answers in relation to Bill C-64.
The Chair: The chair made a ruling that the questioning of witnesses is part of the debate. That ruling was challenged by the Reform Party. The committee sustained the ruling of the chair. The committee is master of itself.
Mr. Hanger: Okay. Can we have the opinion of legal counsel?
The Chair: Of course.
Mr. Michael Clegg (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, the legal counsel does not advise on procedural matters. In that regard the senior advisers to the committee are the clerks.
Mr. Hanger: Then let's turn to the clerks.
The Chair: Would the clerk like to give an opinion?
The Clerk: The committee is perfectly at liberty to establish whatever rules it chooses for itself in debate or in the questioning of witnesses.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): But is it not true that the normal rules of debate can be suspended only by unanimous consent? The normal rules of debate give us an opportunity to debate these issues to the depth they deserve. Those are the normal rules. Even the committee itself cannot change its rules of debate unless there is unanimous consent. Is that not correct?
The Chair: The committee made a motion.
Mr. Epp: I know that.
The Chair: It was properly debated. The chair made a ruling, and of course there was a debate as to the validity of the ruling of the chair. The Reform Party had an opportunity to challenge that ruling. That is within the procedures. The ruling of the chair was sustained by the committee. The committee is the master of itself, so the ruling is sustained.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ. I believe that House rules require unanimous consent, which means that if there was one person on this side who -
An hon. member: That's in the House.
Mr. Epp: But those same rules apply in committee.
The Chair: I am allowing this informal discussion for a moment. Please, let us work in the spirit of goodwill. If we cannot, the chair will use his best judgment to invoke procedure as he deems fit and wise. That will be the determination of this chair.
I don't think Canadians would like a filibuster even at the committee level. I don't think Canadians like obstructionism. I don't think Canadians like to have new politics in Canada, and the new politics -
Mr. Hanger: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think Canadians very well would want such a thing if they had looked at this bill.
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
On clause 3 - Definitions
Mr. White (North Vancouver): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We're still discussing the limiting of debate to five minutes. If each party gets five minutes and this party here decides not to use its five minutes, can that five minutes be transferred to this side, if we agree to that?
.2155
The Chair: I will ask the government side.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: In the spirit of goodwill, maybe at the point where the government has not used it, you may make a request.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, I move to refer the ruling on time allocation that was made by the chair to the Speaker in order to obtain his ruling and that this committee adjourn until that ruling is obtained.
The Chair: I will have to consult the clerk.
Under Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th Edition, page 232, section 822:
- Procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in
the House.
- Therefore the chair could accept that motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, could we ask the government to briefly explain its amendment to us so that we might know what we are voting on? The government must tell us what this amendment is changing. I certainly want to vote, but I want to know what I'm voting on. The lady seems surprised. The honourable parliamentary secretary should explain it to us.
[English]
An hon. member: We're voting on five minutes per party, right -
The Chair: No, there has not been any motion. It was a suggestion from the chair in the spirit of goodwill. It appeared it was heading nowhere, so we have to proceed as the rules allow us to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Please explain it. I want to vote, but I have to know what I'm voting on.
[English]
Mr. Hanger: I have a point of order. I made a motion and put it on the floor, and it has not been voted on.
The Chair: I ruled it out of order.
Mr. Hanger: Why is it out of order?
The Chair: Because in effect you are sending a decision of this committee to the House. According to Beauchesne's, only those who participated in the motion can move that motion be rescinded.
Mr. Strahl: Isn't the motion debatable, though?
Ms Catterall: No, it's out of order.
Mr. Hanger: I challenge that ruling.
The Chair: The Chair made a ruling that it is out of order.
According to section 821 of Beauchesne's, ``All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee''. If you want to challenge the ruling of the chair, challenge it.
Mr. Hanger: I challenge it.
The Chair: So Mr. Hanger challenges the ruling of the chair.
Ms Catterall: I move that the ruling of the chair be sustained.
Mr. Grose (Oshawa): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting more than a little tired of this nonsense. How many voting members do the Reform Party have at the table?
The Chair: Only two.
Mr. Grose: Well, four just voted.
The Chair: Then I think the clerk must make a note -
Mr. Grose: They also shouldn't speak.
The Chair: - that they voted in violation of the procedures of the committee. I think the Reform Party must be advised that it should know the procedures. It must not exercise a right that does not belong to the member at the time the vote is taking place.
Mr. Strahl: I'd ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, because someone may have voted who is not a member of the committee. That's certainly the way to look after that.
The Chair: The recorded vote is now being called.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.2200
The Chair: So the ruling of the chair is sustained.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Mr. Chairman, we have four amendments on this side of the House and I will begin. My process will be productive, prompt, proficient, professional, punctual, purposeful and, obviously, perfect.
I am dealing with motion number 003-002.15A, or G-1.
The Chair: Okay. The time for debate has lapsed. You can introduce the motion, I have been advised by the clerk, but there is no more time for the debate of this clause.
Mr. Dromisky: I move that clause 3 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 15 and 16 on page 2 and substituting the following:
- ``Minister'' «ministre»
- ``Minister'' means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by
the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act;
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Could you explain to me in a few words the reason for this amendment?
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Do you wish me to answer that, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: Well, if you'd like some flexibility, again, I will allow some flexibility within limits. Is it the disposition of the committee to allow some flexibility at this point?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I want to co-operate but I would like to know what I'm voting on. What would be the effect of this amendment? If we are going to be silly about this, it just won't work. If the government proposes an amendment, it must explain the reason for it.
[English]
The Chair: Can you do it very briefly, Mr. Dromisky?
Mr. Dromisky: Yes. The rationale is that the mandate for employment equity may remain with the Minister of Human Resources Development, or it may be given to the Minister of Labour. Flexibility is what we're asking for here. The amendment will allow this flexibility to accommodate any such change in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I see. You have to say so. We have to know.
[English]
Mr. Hanger: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't understand where the amendment is applied in this act.
The Chair: It is clause 3.
Ms Catterall: That's not a point of order.
Mr. Hanger: But where? Where's the introduction?
Ms Catterall: It's not a point of order, I don't believe, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanger: A point of clarification, then, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Catterall: There's no such thing.
Mr. Hanger: There sure is.
Ms Catterall: There is not.
The Chair: Shall this amendment to clause 3 carry?
Mr. Hanger: Can we have a recorded vote on that please, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: May I appeal to the Reform Party...?
Ms Catterall: Rey, don't waste your time. Reason is beyond them.
The Chair: I will try one last time. I'm an extremely patient person because once upon a time I saw a lot of patients. It is essential in humanity to be.
Mr. Hanger: It is, I agree.
The Chair: However, we should also have some kind of reasonableness. May I request, Mr. Hanger, that you withdraw the request for a recorded vote at this time?
Mr. Hanger: I will not, and may I explain why?
This amendment that Mr. Dromisky wants to interject into this bill gives the minister horrendous authority to override any regulation in the bill.
The Chair: That is debate. The vote is now called to be recorded.
Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
.2205
The Chair: Are there any other amendments to this clause?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I refer to amendment number 003-002.37a. This amendment deals with interpretation of the French version in respect to the definition of ``persons with disabilities''.
The motion is to strike out line 37 on page 2 in the French version which now reads:
[Translation]
- ``persons with disabilities'' means persons with an impairment.
and substitute
[Translation]
- who have a long-term impairment or
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. Strahl: Can we debate this?
The Chair: The time for debate on this clause has lapsed.
Mr. Strahl: Could we at least have clarification of what this means in English?
Mr. Maloney: The object is to remove ``affligées'' from the definition of persons with disabilities. The English equivalent would be ``afflicted'' or ``suffering'', but the English version of Bill C-64 doesn't use these words. It just says persons with disabilities have a long-term or recurring impairment.
Witnesses from the disabilities community say they don't need pity, they need work, and they object to words such as ``afflicted'' and ``affligées''.
The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Those in favour say yea.
Mr. Hanger: Debate.
The Chair: Those opposed say nay.
Mr. Hanger: Why isn't there any debate on this clause?
An hon. member: Because the time as lapsed.
The Chair: This is the same clause for which we have already consumed 5 minutes for debate. Since Mr. Hanger was opposed to the suggestion of the chair to increase the time to 15 minutes, we have to go back to what the committee had, in its wisdom, decided ought to be a limit of 5 minutes for debate on each clause.
Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
The Chair: Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again in clause 3, I refer to amendment number 003-003.02a, which deals with the French version.
I move that the French version of clause 3 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 3 and substituting the following:
[Translation]
- and includes persons whose functional limitations owing to their impairment have been
accommodated in their current job or workplace
Mr. Strahl: I'm sure it's close by. Could we have an interpretation as to what that means?
Mr. Maloney: The rationale for this, Chuck, is that this part of the definition of ``persons with disabilities'' for employment equity purposes...the new wording expresses more fully the conceptual framework of the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. The ICIDH framework is also used in Statistics Canada's health and activity limitation survey on which employment equity availability data is derived.
The proposed wording is close to that used in the English version.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. Hanger: I'd like to hear what the witnesses have to say about this particular amendment.
The Chair: The time for debate has lapsed.
Mr. Hanger: Well, I object to that.
The Chair: The chair has not concluded that; it's a statement, Mr. Hanger. Please be polite.
Mr. Hanger: Well, I object to the fact that there is no debate on any of these amendments.
The Chair: The chair would like to say that he will allow the questioning of the witness, even if the time for debate has lapsed, but only if it is reasonable and the chair will make the determination.
Proceed, Mr. Hanger. Pose your question to the witness.
Mr. Hanger: I would like to ask the witnesses about this particular amendment and how it affects this bill. What are your expert opinions on including it? Does it change anything substantively?
Ms Stinson: The impact of this change brings the French version more closely in alignment with what the English version already says.
Mr. Hanger: Meaning?
Ms Stinson: It does not change anything substantively. There is no change to the English side. This is only a change in translation to make sure that the version in French more readily translates and represents in every way the meaning that was already present on the English side.
.2210
Mr. Strahl: Do you agree, Mr. Ménard?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I agree, but we should consult on this. I think we should be shown that courtesy.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chair: Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 3. I refer you to amendment number 003-0033.(a) and 003-003.2(a). Again, the subject matter deals with the French term for ``workforce''.
I move that the French version of clause 3 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 3 and substituting the following:
[Translation]
- ``Canadian workforce''
- ``population apte au travail'' Ensemble des personnes, au Canada, en âge de travailler et
capables
Again, the rationale for this, Mr. Chairman, is that it will minimize the confusion and better capture the intended meaning of the word ``workforce''. The French equivalent for workforce currently used in the Employment Equity Act is population active. However, this term means labour force in Statistics Canada publications. The statistical definitions of the terms ``workforce'' and ``labour force'' are significantly different. There would be confusion about the meaning of the terms due to the different meanings of the two different contexts. To avoid any resulting confusion, the workforce concept requires a unique term in French. The French term, population apte au travail, is more descriptive and closely matches the intended meaning of the term ``workforce''; that is, willing and able.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Strahl: May I just ask, Mr. Chairman, where is the equivalent section in English?
Mr. Dixon: It is the definition of ``Canadian workforce'' on page 1; the equivalent of population active is ``Canadian workforce'' on page 1 of the bill.
Mr. Hanger: Would the witnesses verify whether there is any substantive change by including that amendment?
The Chair: Would the witness please respond?
Mr. Dixon: There's no substantive change. There is no change to the definition. It's simply a change to the term that is being defined, but the definition of the term itself remains unchanged. In their statistics gathering Statistics Canada use the same term population active du Canada to which they assign a different meaning from the one we assign here in this act. It is to avoid confusion with what Statistics Canada uses in the French.
Mr. Strahl: I have just one last short question, Mr. Chairman. This is just total ignorance and I know you can believe this. Why is it that the French and the English are so totally reversed. This is at the very start of the English version and it is the last thing on the French version. Is there a reason why they are in a different order, or is that commonly done?
Mr. Dixon: It is commonly done. It is just that the definitions are ordered alphabetically. They are ordered alphabetically in English and alphabetically in French.
Mr. Strahl: There you go. I learn something every day.
The Chair: Very good.
Amendment agreed to
.2215
Clause 3 as amended agreed to
On clause 4 - Application
Mr. Strahl: We have some amendments to clause 4 that are in the package here.
The Chair: Would you like to propose your amendment?
Mr. Strahl: I have another amendment in both official languages. May I submit it at this time with clause 4?
The Chair: I even have lots of copies in case Mr. Ménard would like -
Mr. Ménard: I appreciate it very much. Can I have both, please?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, they are both there, absolutely. That's what we've got.
Mr. Ménard: It is very much appreciated.
Mr. Strahl: I would like to add this motion, Mr. Chairman.
I move that clause 4 be amended by adding after line 34 the following:
- (d) the Prime Minister's Office.
Mr. Strahl: Why?
Ms Catterall: We do them line by line.
Mr. Strahl: We don't get a chance because it's done clause by clause.
Mr. Hanger: Without any debate.
The Chair: It's a free debate for the clause and then line by line within the clause.
I would like to ask the clerk to advise me on what line we are on.
The Clerk: The amendments should be moved in the order in which they affect the clause. The first amendment to the clause should be that which affects the earliest lines.
The Chair: The proposed amendment is -
The Clerk: The proposed amendment would actually come significantly further on in the consideration of the amendments that have been submitted.
The Chair: Is it not the Reform amendment that was submitted earlier and is the earlier line?
The Clerk: There is a Reform amendment that was submitted to earlier lines.
The Chair: Chuck, you have an earlier amendment, R-3.
Mr. Strahl: I was adding this to clause 4. I wasn't sure if I do it now or when the line comes up.
The Chair: When the line comes up.
Mr. Strahl: Okay, I'll do it again later.
The Chair: Would you like to move the amendment on R-3?
Mr. Strahl: It is notation C004-003.19a.
I move that clause 4 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 3.
The Chair: Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to debate that, Mr. Chairman.
This is an attempt by our party to change to whom this act applies. We feel at a time when the government should be pulling back from increasing regulatory burdens, from forcing employers to sometimes jump through more than one hoop as far as employment equity is concerned, at a time when we all recognize that the increasing paper burden to private sector companies forces an increase in cost and in essence is an indirect method of taxation, that this clause would strike out the private sector employers because we don't think the Canadian employers - a couple of things.
For one thing, we don't think they are systemically discriminatory. That's the first thing. We just don't believe that. In cases where they are shown they are discriminatory, then we think we should haul them before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and throw the book at them. We don't think there are systemic discriminatory practices amongst Canadian employers. We just don't think that's a fact. Statistically, I think you can well show it. Even the number of complaints that the Canadian Human Rights tribunal hears would bear that out.
.2220
As I mentioned, we don't think the private sector employers should be covered under this act because of that. Instead of becoming a helpmate to business, trying to streamline business, and helping good labour relations, we feel the government is forcing a heavy-handed, Ottawa-driven, bureaucrat-endorsed employment equity program down the throats of private sector employers from coast to coast. I think it's a mistake.
I think many of the employers recognize a diverse workforce and having both sexes in the workplace is a good thing. Many private sector employers have come to the committee and said that having a diverse workforce is a great thing. All of those things are givens, and we accept those as givens.
The difference is we don't think it required an Ottawa-based decision to force it on these private sector employers. They're totally capable. In fact, as one of the members on the government side mentioned, even though the public service has been covered by policy, not by legislation, for the last eight or nine years, the performance in the public service has not been as good as the performance in the private sector. To me, it's almost a case in point showing how legislation and policy alone don't make for good personnel management. Certainly in the case of the government in the last eight or nine years, policy has not proven to be as good as what the private sector has done on its own.
That's why we want to strike that particular clause. I don't think it adds anything and it's obviously the way our party thinks we should go.
The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. Hanger: Yes, I have some questions I'd like to ask these witnesses.
In this bill, under subclause 4(1) and down to the inclusive amendment my colleague just interjected - ``the Prime Minister's Office'' - does this compliance equally apply to, for instance, every member of the armed forces as it would to the private sector? Is it equally applied in all areas of the armed forces as well as to the private sector?
Mr. Dixon: As drafted, the coverage of the armed forces is only triggered once there is an Order in Council, once they've been specified by the Governor in Council. In other words, on the passage of this legislation, the armed forces are not immediately covered. That will be dependent upon a decision by the Governor in Council that the act ought to be extended to them.
Mr. Hanger: So what you're saying to me is that it will apply definitely to the private sector -
Mr. Dixon: That's right.
Mr. Hanger: - but will not apply to the armed forces. When it does apply to the armed forces, it will be done behind closed doors by cabinet or whoever is responsible for designating whatever group - without debate. Without any information going public, a 9:1 decision will be made somewhere by someone to indicate that this group will be subjected to the regulations as outlined here in the act and the other group will not?
Mr. Dixon: There is further provision in the bill. Because of the unique employment situation, members of the armed forces are not employees in the traditional or legal sense. There are operational requirements for the armed forces, given their national security role, that may be different and that may have to be adapted in terms of the application of this act to them.
Basically, the way the bill is drafted, until such time as it's determined what modifications or accommodations to this act might have to be made, the act will not cover them.
.2225
Mr. Hanger: It doesn't equally apply then.
Mr. Dixon: I don't know if you want to put it that way. It's just that the armed forces may be in a different situation from other private sector employers.
The Chair: I shall now put the amendment to a vote.
Mr. Hanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2
The Chair: Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, I have an amendment. I refer you to amendment number G-5 dealing with clause 4 of Bill C-64, that it be amended (a) by striking out lines 22 to 29 on page 3 and substituting the following:
- (c) the portions of the Public Service of Canada set out in Part II of Schedule I to the Public
Service Staff Relations Act that employ one hundred or more employees; and
- (d) such other portion of the public sector employing one hundred or more employees,
including the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as
- - and (b) by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 4 and substituting the following:
- (5) Every portion of the public sector referred to in paragraphs (1)(c) and (d) is deemed to be
- - and (c) by striking out line 40 on page 4 and substituting the following:
- (b) paragraphs (1)(c) and (d) for which the Public
Mr. Maloney: It's all pertaining to the second four.
Mr. Strahl: But I put forward a motion on clause 4 and I was ruled out of order because it wasn't yet time for that line. So I'm concerned that we do line by line, and all of a sudden I've been eclipsed.
Ms Catterall: We're not the ones playing games here tonight, Chuck.
The Clerk: The amendment begins at an earlier line and the latter portions of it are consequential upon it. They will not have the effect of blocking your new amendment.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the amendment.
[English]
The Chair: The time for debate has lapsed, but again, the chair would like to allow a very brief intervention. I'd like to be flexible.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Please be flexible. I thought the government decided not to include the Communications Security Establishment. Am I correct in believing that?
[English]
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Why?
[English]
Mr. Maloney: The desire is to cover as much of the public service as possible, as quickly as possible. We are including them now. They were previously excluded. Now we're starting, as of today.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I don't understand that approach. All the witnesses told us that all four should be included, including the Communications Security Establishment. That is a hypocritical way of acting. I do not understand. All the members on the government side said they were in favour of that, and yet today we have before us an amendment which does not include the Communications Security Establishment. Am I right in this?
[English]
Mr. Maloney: We're including them now. Is that not what you would like? What's incredible that you're referring to?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Are the four now included under Employment Equity? Are the four covered, including the Communications Security Establishment?
[English]
Mr. Maloney: No, the RCMP and the Canadian Forces are still excluded. They will be covered by Order in Council at some future date.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes, I see, but all four are covered.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Could I be allowed a short question too?
.2230
Mr. Maloney: Which four are you referring to? We included the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, and the Communications Security Establishment of the Department of National Defence.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: All portions of the public service of Canada. Under (d) are included only ``the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police''. Does that also include...
[English]
Mr. Maloney: Are excluded. The RCMP and the Canadian Forces would be covered only after an order by Governor in Council.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: And the Canadian Service?
[English]
Mr. Maloney: CSIS and National Defence will be covered when the bill passes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: So why are you proposing this amendment? I do not understand why this amendment is being proposed if it is already in the Act. Perhaps this is not clear for you, but it is not any clearer for me either. That is why I am asking the question.
What are you proposing?
[English]
Mr. Maloney: The whole idea was to include as much of the public sector as possible. There were four that were going to be excluded and we're suggesting that at least two of those now be included. The other two will come along -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: And the other two will be by Order in Council.
[English]
Mr. Maloney: Yes, that's correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The witnesses told us that all four should be covered by the Act. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all four are subject, either by Order in Council or by legislation, to the Employment Equity Act. That is how I understand it. That's perfect.
Ms Catterall: It's not perfect, but it is much better.
Mr. Ménard: It is not perfect, but it is much better? That's what the witnesses told us. All four.
[English]
The Chair: Please direct your intervention to the chair. Not as a condition but as an equal request, perhaps we can forego recording the votes. Proceed, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: I have a couple of questions. The original bill says part I, schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and it's now part II. I don't know what that is.
Where it says one hundred or more employees in proposed amendment (d), including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is that per detachment or is it the entire force?
Mr. Maloney: It's the entire force.
Mr. Hanger: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm finding it somewhat incomplete. There's a sort of debate going on about these particular amendments between the government side and the members on the opposition side. The witnesses sitting here have expert advice to offer and cannot be questioned because of your ruling. I'm at a loss as to how we can legitimately go through these sections, even the clause-by-clause, without consultation.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, I think you alone can explain your sense of loss.
Mr. Hanger: I can't explain my loss at all. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I believe there should be at least a second round granted on each amendment or one round granted on each amendment to qualify. That was not brought up in this debate. The amendments weren't even included in this debate, other than in clause-by-clause, and you restricted any debate on the clause. That was not debated at all, and I don't feel that's my responsibility. I think as a group of parliamentarians here we would want adequate debate on every amendment, and there are questions that arise in these subamendments and amendments that should be addressed.
The Chair: That is why I will again exercise one more measure of patience. The chair made an offer to the committee, and you alone, on behalf of the Reform Party, objected to increasing the time allocation for debate from five to fifteen minutes. You objected to that and now you're trying to invoke that you need more time. I cannot see the rationale for your argument. So on that note we will proceed.
Mr. Hanger: I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we have five minutes to debate each amendment that goes forward, including the clause itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.
When a committee member asks a question on a matter which has already been decided, you should not even recognize him. You should declare his motion out of order.
I do not find it very appropriate for the Reform Party of Canada to keep coming back on decisions which have already been made. In any deliberating assembly, when a decision is made by the chair, either you can appeal the decision and remove the chair, or you have to accept it.
.2235
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Are there any amendments to clause 4?
Mr. Strahl: I have the one that refers to line 34. Are we ready for that?
The Chair: Proceed, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: I see in this packet of things we have one from the committee. Is that first?
The Clerk: As a result of the committee adopting the previous motion from Mr. Maloney, the next three motions in the packet labelled C-1, R-4 and R-5 cannot be put because those lines have already been dealt with by the committee. So the next motion is R-6 or the other amendment to line 34.
The Chair: R-6, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: I have two more amendments on this; the one I have here and the one I circulated earlier. So I'll go to the one that's in our packet here first.
The Chair: Proceed, please.
Mr. Strahl: Would you like that read out, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: The new amendment you've given us should go first.
Mr. Strahl: I would like to move that clause 4 be amended by adding after line 34 the following new clause:
- (d) the Prime Minister's office.
.2240
Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2
The Chair: Would you like the next amendment, Mr. Strahl, R-6, in the docket?
Mr. Strahl: I'm actually shocked and a little dismayed. This time it's a motion, IC-004-003.30a, that clause 4 be amended by adding immediately after line 34 on page 3 the following:
- (1.1) Every order made under paragraph 4(1)(c) is subject to an affirmative resolution of the
House of Commons.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Ms Catterall: It now being quarter to eleven and it being nearly six hours from the last meal time for many of us - nearly ten hours from the last meal I actually had - I hereby move that the chair order some kind of food to arrive within less than half an hour.
Mr. Ménard: I suggest a pizza.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to move - and I'm not too sure of the wording here - that we adjourn for one hour in order to take in sustenance.
Mr. Ménard: I have an intervention.
The Chair: There is a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very unlikely that we will be able to finish all the amendments in one evening. In a spirit of respect for our work, I would ask the government to allow us to resume tomorrow if we are not finished by midnight. If the government were not to agree to this, we would have to make trouble. This is not much fun, and we are not machines. Like most of you, I began at 7 a.m. We can certainly continue tomorrow. We had planned to keep Thursday in reserve. Nothing will have changed if we resume tomorrow morning. The Reform Party will not change its views. It will still be opposed.
I would ask the government to respect our position and the work we are doing. If we haven't finished by midnight, we can meet again tomorrow at 9 a.m. That is what was planned. I myself am going to leave. If I thought that the government was unwilling to co-operate on this, you can count on us. The same thing will happen next time.
We don't have to sit all night to adopt this bill. It is not urgent. Nobody's life is being threatened. Nobody will suffer if we resume tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. We have to forget about party games and show some respect for individuals. Physically, I myself will not be able to work all night. I think that that is probably true of several other people here also.
.2245
I can understand the urgency of the situation. The government knows how important this bill is also to the Opposition, but we have to stop thinking that we are going to be able to work until 3 or 4 a.m. We can meet again tomorrow morning. We can continue until midnight, but we will lose our concentration. I would ask the Liberal strategists, whose names I will not mention, to pressure their colleagues into allowing us to meet again tomorrow morning. You yourself will not be able to keep going.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to speak to that motion, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Yes, please.
Mr. Strahl: The member from the Bloc, my good friend Réal -
Mr. Ménard: Is that me?
Mr. Strahl: Yes - has brought up a -
The Chair: Where is the rose?
Mr. Strahl: The bloom is off the rose, Mr. Chairman.
I think he brings up a good point in that obviously the Reform Party is going to continue to raise problems that we have with the bill throughout. We already are very restricted as far as time goes. As a matter of fact, you can compute the amount of time that it's going to actually take. I know it appears slow, but now that we've got to the restrictions, it's going to go fairly fast, whether we like it or not.
Although I don't suppose I'm going to change my ideas on it, I think Mr. Ménard is right that it probably would be done by the weekend either way, but it's up to the government side. If they want to sit, I'm certainly prepared to sit throughout. It's just that I think Mr. Ménard has a point that you can go back to your schedule and I don't think you'd be out anything, if that's what you're worried about.
The Chair: Well, the motion has been moved by Ms Catterall.
Mr. Hanger: Could I say something with regard to that motion?
The Chair: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Hanger: I know Mr. Ménard has certainly been here for some time. I haven't been here that long. I'm prepared to debate as long as possible, and I know other members in our caucus have certainly committed themselves to that.
I think the bill is a very important one, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I don't think we're having adequate debate here and adequate input from many of the witnesses either. I find it unfortunate that we can't get into it. Even with the slow process that we're involved in here of introducing all these amendments, there's no question that it's going to carry on late into the morning, without even questioning the witnesses who are involved.
I can only see that it would be necessary, if we were going to have adequate debate, to break somewhere along the way, but unfortunately we don't; we don't have adequate opportunity for input and we don't have adequate opportunity to listen to replies from these witnesses and others who could probably offer some essential facts to this case. I find that all we're doing is debating with the government side, and that's not reasonable when there are those who are independent of the whole government who should be involved.
I can appreciate the fact that we're here to try to get what we can out of this bill and to make some sense out of it. It doesn't appear that is going to be happening, but if this is the will of the committee, to sit here and go through it in this fashion, then I guess that's what we're prepared to do.
The Chair: I renew my offer as the chair. It's very short. I would not allow any debate. We will go to the vote on the motion of Ms Catterall. If we can get a consensus to have five minutes per party per clause, provided that we do not call for a recorded vote -
Mr. Hanger: We have that already.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We are discussing two motions. I want to know if the government...
[English]
The Chair: No, this is an offer, because things may change. I still have -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: No, the situation will not change. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I want to know if the government agrees that we should stop at midnight if we have not finished and resume tomorrow morning. I want their opinion on that. This is not a game; we are dealing here with the health of individuals. We must also consider the support staff, who have a right to leave. What is the position of the government on this? If it refuses, we will take other measures.
[English]
The Chair: We will allow Mr. Hanger.
.2250
Mr. Hanger: I gather we're debating Ms Catterall's motion.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Hanger: Well, I would like to make an amendment to that motion. I move that we order food at midnight instead of now.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. With all respect, we don't need a motion. I'm requesting the chair to order food for the health of everybody in this room.
The Chair: The chair apologizes. I've been hearing so many motions tonight that I thought everything was a motion.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, could we consider Mr. Ménard's proposal? I guess it wasn't a motion. I thought it was.
The Chair: It was a proposal.
Mr. Strahl: Could we hear the government's response to his proposal?
The Chair: Is there a predisposition to -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Is the government ready to adjourn the meeting at midnight and continue tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.?
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: I think what we're doing here tonight is revisiting a lot of the things that we've already established.
I believe there was a motion moved by Mr. Wood that basically stated we would continue on until we complete clause-by-clause study. We can't revisit this all the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes, we can. If you don't agree to our coming back, then you can be sure that I and the Reform Party will make problems for you until tomorrow morning. We can come back to that point.
This is not a game. This has to be done seriously, and we will no longer be able to do that after midnight. I myself will be tired.
We are asking the government to...
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Put it into context. We came here with a lot of goodwill. Certain things were done this evening that we thought were obstructionist in nature and we certainly don't appreciate it.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Me too.
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: So if people are going to play games then I think you've got to walk your talk. If you really think this bill is important and you think that completing the clause-by-clause study is important, then we'll do it. So plan to be here because we will be here.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we can do that tomorrow morning when everyone can think clearly. In any event, even if we sit until 6 a.m., the Reform Party members will not change their mind. Tomorrow morning, the result will be the same. There is no great emergency requiring that it be adopted this evening rather than tomorrow morning.
People must not be taken for fools. The government should accept my proposal to adjourn at midnight and resume tomorrow morning. In any event, all discussion will be limited to five minutes. That was decided by the majority. Tomorrow, the clause will be adopted and that won't change anything for you.
It's as if you were hoping that with time the Reform Party will become less opposed to this. In fact the opposite is true because the more tired they become, the more they will object.
Also show respect for the people who have worked together on this. We have worked well together. I don't feel like spending the night here. Tomorrow morning the Minister of Justice is coming, and that is a good thing.
[English]
The Chair: I will call a five-minute recess.
.2310
The Chair: The meeting will resume.
I sense there will be unanimous consent to adjourn despite the ruling we had for midnight.
Do I have unanimous consent for tonight?
Mr. Strahl: I have a question. I think so. I wanted to know until what time we are adjourned.
The Chair: We would be adjourned until 9:30.
The Clerk: We have a steering committee meeting scheduled at 9 o'clock, and the whole committee is scheduled to meet at 9:30 on clause-by-clause.
The Chair: We can start at 9 o'clock and dispense with the steering committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I am ready to go to 1 a.m. I have said that and I will keep my word.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I just want to know to what we're adjourning. If we adjourn at midnight, then when will we come back?
The Chair: The committee will come back at 9:30 and the steering committee at 9 o'clock. For the first half hour we have an agenda to finish before the end of Friday.
Mr. Strahl: Are we going to deal with the estimates tomorrow morning?
The Chair: No. The clerk has received word from the minister that because of unforeseen circumstances he can't make it for tomorrow, but he can make it before the end of the month.
Mr. Strahl: The steering committee will meet at 9, but the committee as a whole, as far as this motion is concerned, adjourns until 9:30.
The Chair: That's right.
Do I have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
On clause 5 - Employer's duty
The Chair: Clause 5 agreed to.
Mr. Maloney: No, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. I refer you to amendment G-6.
The motion is that the French version of clause 5 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 30 to 34 on page 5 and substituting the following:
[Translation]
- (i) au sein de la population apte au travail,
- (ii) dans les secteurs de la population apte au travail susceptibles d'être distin-
Again this is dealing with the French term for workforce - population active to population apte au travail.
This is consistent with the earlier amendment to clause 3 on page 3.
The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. Strahl: Okay. I'll accept it. I have to accept it.
[Translation]
I am not bilingual.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. Ménard: But you can work if you want to.
The Chair: Do the ayes have it?
Mr. Strahl: I just want a clarification. Has there been a substitution form given for Mr. White?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Strahl: I thought that was done.
The Chair: So do the ayes have it?
Mr. Strahl: I voted nay, and I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: All right.
Amendment agreed to: yeas, 8; nays 1.
Mr. Strahl: Do we have some time left for debate on clause 5?
The Chair: Yes, indeed. Proceed.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chair, this again goes to the heart of this whole issue about what is required of private sector employers and what's required of people who are trying to hire more people of all kinds. In Canada right now there is plenty of evidence. For example, I could quote from this document here about the burden of business that says:
- ...the burden of business is the intervention and interference of government in the operations of
business.
It is the effect of regulations that hurts competitiveness; it is the cost involved in complying with regulatory requirements, collecting taxes and responding to information demands from government; and it is the administrative hurdles, the lack of customer service, the delays, the uncertainties and the frustration involved in dealing with public bureaucracy.
That, Mr. Chairman, if I could quote from the Small Business Working Committee, deals with the burden of government, this document being Breaking Through Barriers: Forging Our Future. In essence, what I get from that is everything that this particular thing forces on employers.
Instead of giving employers what they need in order to prosper and to excel, which is to hire people based on merit, and that would include of course all groups, they are forced to jump through the employment equity hoops in an effort to meet the demands of government.
I think the frustrating part is that although it costs a considerable amount of money - according to some people, up to 1% of our GDP - to implement these...that first phrase ``shall implement employment equity'' doesn't make for any more hiring. There may be billions of dollars involved in regulatory hang-ups, in problems and in paperwork - we saw some of the Simpson-Sears catalogues that came before us as evidence of what's done for some of the larger companies, but the sad part is that it doesn't make for any more employees.
I'd like to reiterate that when I think of the employer obligations - they certainly have plenty of them in this bill - as I read out from this document here, the effect of those regulations, I believe, hurts competitiveness, it is costly, and because employers are not systemically discriminatory, it is unnecessary.
So again, on clause 5, I feel that the entire clause is.... It does describe in accurate detail what is required of employers. You can't put the dollar figures beside each of those clauses, but it's not insignificant and it's really unfortunate that we didn't hear considerably more testimony from employers who have had to live with even the past eight years of the old Employment Equity Act as to the actual costs they have incurred.
I question the wisdom of - this is kind of one of those examples that the Auditor General brought forward of bringing forward new legislation and not having examined the impact of the old. I think clause 5 is another one of those examples. We're going to plough ahead with this apparently, yet we didn't hear from employer groups who had serious problems, who could detail to us the costs and point out some of the negative aspects of these so-called positive policies.
As this document says - and this is the one that refers to an attempt to talk about breaking through the barriers - the government burden costs businesses time and money. It is conservatively estimated that regulatory compliance costs the economy approximately $30 billion annually, already, and requires well over 20,000 federal government employees to keep the process lumbering along.
This bill - and this gets into the employer obligations here - is going to add to that cost and add to those numbers. When it's conservatively - and that has nothing to do with the political parties - estimated that it costs the economy already $30 billion -
The Chair: May I request that Mr. Strahl conclude his debate? We have now exceeded the time.
Mr. Strahl: It's a shame when we're going to add some more money, an unknown amount, I recognize, onto the backs of employers who are already having a tough time making ends meet and doing the job that the government has asked them to do, which is to create jobs and opportunities.
The Chair: Time for debate has concluded.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the witnesses, please?
The Chair: The time for debate has finished. I would like to put the motion -
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, surely I can ask a question. I only just got to sit here -
The Chair: I realize that but -
Mr. White: - and I have a question regarding this clause.
The Chair: Had you given me the option, since you would have known it right from the beginning, then I would have asked Mr. Strahl to share the time with you. In fact, I overheard that you would not like to ask a question. I overheard that.
So at this point, the chair places the motion to a vote.
.2320
Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
On clause 6 - Employer not required to take certain measures
Mr. Strahl: I have an amendment, numbered R-7, that clause 6 be amended (a) by striking out line 3 on page 6 and substituting the following:
- 6.(1) The obligation to implement employ-
- That's just the way that word ends.
- (b) by striking out lines 9 to 16 on page 6 and substituting the following:
- (b) notwithstanding any provision in any other Act of Parliament, to hire or promote any but the
best qualified persons: or
- (c) by adding immediately after line 17 on page 6 the following:
- (2) In paragraph (1)(b), ``best qualified'' means best qualified irrespective of race, gender or
disability.
The Chair: Proceed.
Mr. Strahl: This again goes to the heart of a definition that the courts have already ruled on. I believe the government is in error on this whole idea of merit. They say we will hire on merit and merit alone and that merit will be upheld according to this Employment Equity Act. Unfortunately, the courts have defined merit already. A court decision says that merit is defined as best qualified. That's what the court said.
Within this bill, when we talk about merit, unfortunately the government doesn't mean the best qualified. The government means anybody who can pass the minimum requirements. There is a vast difference between hiring the best qualified, as defined by the courts, and hiring someone who can meet a certain minimum standard, or, I think, as some people say, ``is qualifiable''.
Really, this again is the crux of the matter. Do we use terms such as ``merit'', defined by the courts as best qualified, or do we use merit, disregard the court's decision and just say it doesn't have to be best qualified? It can be something else than best qualified. We've examined this in committee. We know that the Public Service Employment Act and subsection 15(2) of the Charter allow for the government to hire people who are not best qualified. That is an absolute fact.
It's the absolute travesty of the bill - and, for the life of me, I still don't understand how the government gets away with this - that instead of adhering to the court's ruling defining merit as best qualified, the government has chosen to redefine merit as anybody who can meet a particular standard. That is the crux of the issue. If we're talking about hiring on merit, as described in the courts, it is best qualified, which is what my amendments clarify. That's not the Reform Party saying that; that is just what the courts say.
The courts having decided that, I think we should follow through on that, and we should follow through on the Public Service Employment Act, which says we shall hire by merit. Merit is not setting the bar at two feet and hoping lots of people can jump over it. As clearly as we can figure out, merit means an independent, honest hiring practice with no patronage involved. It is to allow people to be hired as best qualified regardless of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation - I don't care what it is. It doesn't make any difference because if you're best qualified -
.2325
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I would like to reserve one minute of this five minutes.
Mr. Strahl: The best qualified is what the public service deserves, it's what Canadians deserve, it's what all people who are being hired deserve.
If I had some time I'd quote from numerous articles that point out that people, probably especially in the designated groups, do not want to be patronized. They just say, allow me to compete and I will take my share of the jobs. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the crux of the argument. Do we go with the court definition?
The Chair: I shall interrupt debate at this point. The time is exactly five minutes.
Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I asked for one minute of that five minutes. Do you intend to allow one party to monopolize the five minutes when there's another point of view to be expressed?
The Chair: Unless I can see unanimous consent, the chair would like to be strict and apply the rules adopted by the committee.
Ms Catterall: I agree entirely with applying the five minutes. I just wondered if you're going to share that when there are others who have indicated a wish to have a portion of that five minutes.
The Chair: I think, if given in advance, I would take that into account to be fair to all members of the committee.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague. I'd like to move that paragraph 6(a) be deleted and amended to read as follows:
- (a) to implement any measure of employment equity.
Mr. White: I would like to debate.
The Chair: No, there is no time for debate. The time for debate of the clause has lapsed.
Mr. White: Is there no debate for amendments to amendments, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: We have decided that the time for consideration of the clause is five minutes. The limits of the chair's patience have been exceeded.
Mr. Strahl: I would like a recorded vote, please.
Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Mr. Strahl: There's another amendment in our package, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: What is the amendment?
Mr. Strahl: For the clerk's benefit, it's lettered C006-006.08A. I'm not sure what the A is for. I'll leave that for the clerk. It's on clause 6, page 6. I move that paragraph 6(a) be amended by striking out line 8 on page 6 and substituting the following:
- ship to the employer in that it would place an excessive financial burden on the employer that
would be out of proportion to the benefit to be derived from the measure.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, could I get clarification of what exactly that amendment would mean?
The Chair: The vote has been called. You're too late, Mr. White.
.2330
Mr. Strahl: This is a good amendment, guys, come on.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Strahl: I have one more amendment in our package. For the clerk's benefit it's lettered C-006.16(a), amendment R-9, on clause 6, page 6.
I move that clause 6 be amended by striking out line 16 and substituting the following:
- merit;
- (c.1) that is a private sector employer to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring
or promotion on selection according to merit as determined by the employer; or
The Chair: No. The chair makes a ruling that the vote has been called.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the clerk if that's an appropriate -
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. White: No, I am challenging the chair. Mr. Chair, I would -
The Chair: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained or not?
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I would like the clerk to tell me whether this is an appropriate procedure -
The Chair: The ruling of the chair is sustained.
Mr. Bevilacqua: You should have been here three hours earlier.
The Chair: That is out of order.
Mr. White: Surely, I'm allowed to ask a question of the clerk.
The Chair: It's obviously obstructionism to a classic degree.
Mr. White: Well, what sort of procedure is happening here in this committee, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not when I'm -
Mr. White: What am I going to tell my constituents when I go back to the riding, when I tell them I can't even ask questions of the committee?
The Chair: The chair has made its ruling.
Mr. White: What sort of democracy is this?
The Chair: The chair has made its ruling.
Mr. White: It's not a democracy.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. White: No, Mr. Chair, I will not stop until -
The Chair: You are out of order, Mr. White.
Mr. White: - I'm allowed to ask the clerk whether this is appropriate behaviour for the chair.
The Chair: You are out of order, Mr. White!
Mr. White: Well, I don't care if you consider me out of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the clerk if this is appropriate behaviour by the chairman.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, it is unacceptable.
The Chair: All those in favour, say yea.
Mr. White: It's a waste of time continuing until I get the chance to ask the question.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. White: Keep asking, if you like, but it won't make any difference. I insist that I be given an opportunity to ask the clerk this question.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. White: You can't possibly have a motion until it's discussed.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, it's simply not done.
Mr. White: There was simply no vote then.
Clause 6 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 7 - Employment of aboriginal peoples
Mr. Strahl: How about debate on clause 7?
The Chair: It's too late. The vote has been put for -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we had agreed to allot five minutes. You must allow people to express themselves four or five minutes, and after five minutes you must then call the question. That is the purpose of the motion. I would appeal to you and the members of the Reform Party to look at this calmly. Please recognize that people have the right to speak four or five minutes, and then you call the question. Fair play must be mutual.
[English]
The Chair: Clause 7, for debate, on the note that I will divide it if there are any indications of debate on the motion. Now proceed, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you. This clause again separates people, which is the reason why the Reform Party will oppose it. It separates people based on race or ethnicity. Although I think I can appreciate the intent of the clause from the drafter's point of view and from the government's view, it institutionalizes in Canada certain rights and privileges based on a person's race. We think this is a serious error and a serious departure from where most Canadians are heading. We believe most Canadians are heading toward a country where race, gender, visible minority status....
.2335
Most Canadians are heading toward, we believe, a country where race, gender, visible minority status should not matter. This clause asks Canadians or asks employers engaged primarily in promoting or serving the interests of aboriginal persons...that could be on reserve, off reserve, non-status, status. It's a totally debatable issue as to whether it's even...I don't know how you would define primarily serving aboriginal persons. Besides the fact that it is unknown, it does separate and give separate rules based on ethnicity and background. My question would be is that the direction that Canadians would have us go?
I think I mentioned during the proceedings that I have a friend who has been adopted into an aboriginal tribe. He is an honorary member and has been given an aboriginal name and has been working with and alongside aboriginal people now for a dozen years. He doesn't consider himself aboriginal, but certainly in all but a status card this man is accepted within the aboriginal community.
When I see that an employer will give preference in employment to aboriginal people, I think instead of going on the merit of this. For example, if this friend of mine wanted to apply for a job as a social worker...I am not sure if he is qualified, but say he had the technical background to qualify for that, he could be disqualified, not because he is not (a) accepted by the aboriginal people, (b) understands totally their culture and background, (c) is respected and has been given an aboriginal name. He will be disqualified because of his race.
Mr. Epp: That's racism.
Mr. Strahl: You may say it is a rare case, but I think if you go north, there are trappers in the north, aboriginal and non-aboriginal trappers, who work side by side and who would also think this racial thing is nonsense. For example, if the qualifications for the job were that you must understand Indian culture, that's a fair qualification; absolutely. If it's germane to the job, he must understand some basics of the aboriginal language involved. That would be fair. He must have worked in the community as a volunteer before. That would be fair. All those things would be fair.
What is not fair is when you say to this friend of mine, you fulfil all qualifications for this job. You are respected, you are talented and you are capable. You have an honorary aboriginal name. You are qualified in every way. But the employer decided not to hire you because of your racial background. You are a non-aboriginal.
I just cannot think this is a good way to arrange the employment patterns in our country. This friend of mine is out of luck and that is a shame.
Depending on where you are in this country, there are more and less of them, depending on the number of aboriginal persons and your frequency of contact with them and your inter-workings with the community. In no way should employers be either encouraged or discouraged to hire people because they are non-aboriginal.
I just cannot believe this is a move in the right direction. Again, I understand they want to serve aboriginal people well and so do I, but you don't do that by imposing racial criteria on an employer. You do it by putting in objective job criteria, as I mentioned. Having done that, you leave it to a competition. That should be why this clause should be deleted.
The Chair: The time for debate has lapsed.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 7, beginning in line 20, to delete all of the words following the word ``primarily'' and substitute the following therefor:
- involved in the running of a restaurant, that employer may employ the appropriate ethnic mix
consistent with the theme of the restaurant.
- Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, where a private sector employer is engaged
primarily involved in the running of a restaurant, that employer may employ the appropriate
ethnic mix consistent with the theme of the restaurant.
The Chair: This amendment has been noted by the clerk.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like a recorded vote on that, please. I want to get on the record on this one.
Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1
Mr. White: I don't know what I'm going to tell the Indian restaurant in my area.
Mr. Strahl: It's just as valid as the one that's there.
On clause 7 - Employment of aboriginal peoples
Mr. Strahl: Could I have a recorded vote on that, please?
Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3
On clause 8 - Certain rights not employment barriers
Mr. Grose: This is a motion to amend, number 008-007.01a.
The amendment would add a new subclause to clause 8 which deems employee seniority rights not to be barriers. The new subclause would require employers and employee representatives to consult with each other on measures to minimize the adverse impact of seniority rights on the employment opportunities of members of designated groups.
Boy, that's a long one.
Following an employment systems review, it is determined that a protected seniority right may in fact have an adverse effect.
The reasoning here was that concerns were raised by associations representing members of some of the designated groups, particularly Women in Trades and Technology. I had quite a dialogue with them, so I'm familiar with this.
Specifically, there were concerns that the current wording in the bill did not provide enough positive direction to employers and employee representatives to address possible adverse consequences of seniority rights.
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to speak to this.
Clause 8 I believe will be whistling in the dark. A ``whistling past the graveyard'' clause is what this will be known as.
If the government thinks simply by saying in subclause 8.(1) seniority rights will trump employment equity, which is basically what they're saying, then they have not examined court rulings in the United States and they have not looked at subsection 15(2) of the charter.
By the way, in the side-bar of subsection 15(2) of the charter, it says ``Affirmative action''. That's what it says. It doesn't say ``employment equity''.
Anyway, under subsection 15(2), on a charter challenge, clause 8 will fall. It absolutely will fall. Subsection 15(2) of the charter says you can have any employment practices you deem necessary to redress or address systemic discrimination.
Many of the people who were before the committee said seniority is a problem. Especially in times of downsizing, seniority presents a problem to achieving numerical goals in employment equity. And seniority, if facing a challenge under the charter, absolutely will fall, because it's just so explicit in the charter. It can't possibly stand a charter challenge.
So although this is put in place, I believe, to reassure union members who are covered by a seniority clause, this will do nothing anyway. This clause will fall on a court challenge. It will fall as it fell in the United States of America. It will fall here because our charter even more explicitly and strongly says all practices of employers are up for grabs when it comes to employment equity, or affirmative action, as it says in the side-bar.
.2345
So clause 8, although they're talking about adverse impact on employment opportunities, I believe is not going to survive a charter challenge.
With my remaining 30 seconds I would like to ask one question of the witnesses. Has subclause 8.(1), or have the following ones that deal with seniority rights, been checked with the constitutional lawyer to see if it will stand a constitutional challenge?
Mr. Dixon: This is the first time I've heard a charter argument raised. If employers' seniority rights on layoff and recall are contrary to the charter, perhaps we might have heard by now of a charter challenge to those rights. All this provision is saying is that those rights, for purposes of this bill in terms of an obligation of an employer to remove what might be perceived as barriers to the employment opportunities...the employer is not obliged to change the existing seniority rights. But there has never been a suggestion...and I have yet to see any case that has indicated that the hard-won rights of seniority that organized labour has acquired over the years are now vulnerable to charter challenges.
Mr. Strahl: That's the question, then. Has it been checked with a constitutional lawyer? We asked this question a dozen different ways in committee during our hearings. For instance, I think the chair's words were...I hate to put words in his mouth because he's so poetic, but the words were, will employment equity trump seniority? Is it possible that could happen? My question is has that been checked?
Mr. Dixon: I'm afraid I don't really understand the question.
The Chair: The time for debate has lapsed.
Mr. White: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to my colleague's motion: that in subclause 8.(1) on page 6, lines 27 to 32 be deleted in their entirety and the following substituted:
- Employee seniority rights be given priority over the provisions of employment equity in
this Act.
Mr. White: Yes, I am.
The Chair: The amendment has been proposed. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment negatived
Mr. White: We need a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1
The Chair: Shall clause 8 as amended carry? The yeas have it.
Mr. Strahl: No, no. Point of order. It's not clause 8 carried as amended.
The Chair: No, not yet.
Mr. Strahl: That's what you said.
The Chair: My apologies. Shall the amendment G-7 by the government carry? It was carried by viva voce.
Mr. Strahl: May we have a recorded vote on that?
Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
.2350
Clause 8 as amended agreed to
Mr. White: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Did I hear a request for a recorded vote?
Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the committee would consider that the clock read midnight?
Ms Catterall: No.
Mr. Strahl: We are starting to slip. Even the chair is starting to slip.
The Chair: No, it was just an exercise of selective antennae and the speed of humour.
Mr. Strahl: Well, I move that the clock reads midnight and I would like to debate that motion.
Mr. Ménard: But we will still -
Mr. Strahl: I would like to read that the clock read midnight and I would like to debate that motion.
The Chair: I will rule that motion out of order because we have a previous declaration ruling that we shall adjourn at midnight. It being 10 minutes before that, I think the -
Mr. Strahl: But we do that all the time in the House, Mr. Chair. Although that's the Standing Order -
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: None.
On clause 9 - Analysis and review
Mr. Maloney: I have some amendments to clause 9. I refer you to amendment No. 009-007-19a; clause 9. It's on page 7. The amendment is that the French version of clause 9 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 7 and substituting the following:
[Translation]
- a) conformément aux règlements, de recueillir des renseignements sur son effectif et
d'effectuer des analyses sur celui-ci afin de mesurer la sous-
Again, the rationale behind that, Mr. Chair, is that paragraph 9.(1)(a) requires each employer to gather data on its workforce and to analyse this with a view to identifying any under-representation of designated group members. The present French version omits mention of gathering data on the workforce and refers only to analysis of this data. The amendment as proposed corrects this omission.
Amendment agreed to
Mr. Strahl: Could we have a recorded vote?
Amendment agreed to: yeas 7: nays 2
The Chair: Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Loney: Mr. Chair, I move to amend 009.700.36a. I move that clause 9 of Bill C-64 be amended by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 7, the following:
- Information collected by an employer
The Clerk: Clause 8 is carried.
Mr. Strahl: Are we going to do the amendments as we have them in our package, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Well, I have recognized Mr. Loney and the amendment has been put forward. Is there any debate on that amendment?
Mr. Strahl: I would like to debate the amendment if I could.
Mr. Loney: Mr. Chair, may I complete the amendment, please?
The Chair: Yes, sorry. Read the amendment, please.
Mr. Loney: It is to read that:
- Information collected by an employer under paragraph (1)(a) is confidential and shall be
used only for the purpose of implementing the employer's obligations under this Act.
.2355
Employers as well as designated groups made it clear that designated group status is so personal and so sensitive that employees won't answer questions about race or disability unless they can trust it will be kept confidential.
Mr. Chairman, employees need assurance that the employer is bound by law to make sure the information is used only for purposes of employment equity.
Mr. Strahl: Could I debate that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ménard: I want to debate it too.
Mr. Strahl: Oh, sure.
Well, then, I'd like at least to split my time with Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard: I want to debate it first.
Mr. Strahl: Okay.
Mr. Ménard: He's very friendly.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard has the floor.
Mr. Strahl: I would like time as well. As Mrs. Catterall mentioned, I would just like to split my time, because we have only five minutes.
The Chair: We have only one and a half minutes left.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure that the word ``confidential'' will not be an obstacle when we subsequently adopt the provision requiring the employer to share such information with the representatives of the employees. That is the only fear I have. If the government side can reassure me that such is not the case, I will be pleased to vote in favour of the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Before I -
Mr. Ménard: Can I have an answer, please?
Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have someone here keeping time as well. Apparently what's happening is that the time spent in reading out some of these longer motions counts as voting. All the other time is counting on the five minutes, and it shouldn't be. We have five minutes of debate, not five minutes counting the reading of the motion and so on. That's not debate.
The debate began when he explained his motion. I accept that. But when he explained the motion it took maybe thirty seconds, and we're already down to nothing left. That wasn't the agreement. The agreement by the committee was five minutes of debate, not five minutes....
I can see the time has gone; it has rushed away. But it's not five minutes of actual debate.
The Chair: Mr. Strahl has made his observation. The chair has exercised some flexibility.
I am making a note, as well, Mr. Strahl, that you have been speaking beyond your limits. I do not like to call it to the public record, but since you have forced me to do that, yes, you have exceeded your public debating time. Next time, on your advice, I will ensure that I follow that advice and cut you off, even in the middle of a sentence.
Mr. Strahl: All right. I'm a happy camper.
Mr. Epp: You've been including the time of reading the motions.
The Chair: Yes, and that will be taken into account. If you want me to do it that way I will do it that way, with pleasure.
Mr. Strahl: On that same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy - no, I'm not happy -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Could I have an answer to my question?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I'm still on a point of order.
Mr. Ménard: You don't respect my question.
Mr. Strahl: I would think your question will be answered.
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Strahl: On that same point of order - just a short one - if I went over five minutes, I didn't know. You didn't stop me. I'm not keeping track. By all means stop me if you have to, but I don't apologize for what went on before. You didn't stop me.
I'm saying now that this very important clause - and I would like to have had at least a couple of minutes to kick the cat on it - has been eaten up in the reading of the motion and so on.
I don't apologize for what went on before. Certainly you're free to cut me off. But by all means there should be five minutes to debate, and as Mrs. Catterall has pointed out, if people want to split the time, or have something to say, then I would think we should do it.
Now, that's my only point. I don't want to -
The Chair: The point has been taken into account by the chair. The chair makes the observation that in fact the five-minute total for this particular clause has been exhausted. The only time left is the reading of the amendment and the explanation. If one does not like an explanation because it exceeds the time, the chair will make a ruling.
On that point, the time for debate of clause 9 has terminated - excluding the time spent on the reading of the motion.
Ms Catterall: I must object. Mr. Strahl, as will be clear from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, on a point of order, which is not debate, has taken most of the time of this committee this evening, both on debate and on time-wasting such as demanding recorded votes.
Twice I have asked for a portion of the five minutes allowed for debate. Mr. Strahl has had it all. I did not have a portion. Today Mr. Ménard asked to be heard first. He should have been heard first. I move that he now be heard.
.2400
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard: Thank you very much. I suppose you agree.
[Translation]
I just want an item of information. I want to be sure that this will not have an adverse effect on a subsequent amendment requiring the employer to share such information with representatives of the employees. I just want to know if that will or will not be the case.
[English]
Mr. Maloney: No, it will not. It's just on a case-to-case basis.
Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, it is after midnight.
The Chair: The motion has been put to a vote, that the ruling has precedence over the adjournment time of 12:00 midnight.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge that ruling.
The Chair: The ruling of the chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
An hon. member: You can't challenge a ruling during the vote.
Mr. Dromisky: They keep changing their clauses.
The Chair: I'm sorry, the ruling of the chair cannot be challenged during a vote. I have been advised by the expert.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Ms Catterall: I move adjournment.
Mr. Strahl: I had one amendment to clause 9.
The Chair: I will rule any motion from the government or the opposition as being out of order, because the vote is being taken.
Mr. Strahl: You can't have that, Mr. Chairman. Parliament, this place, is supposed to shut down at midnight and it's well past that. If that ruling was approved, then that was the last motion. You can't keep going with more motions, because it's after midnight.
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.