EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 1995

.0935

[English]

The Chair: The committee will proceed with its consideration of Bill C-64.

Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Chairman, may I please make a statement?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl: Upon reviewing the proceedings of yesterday's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64 by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, I believe that my privileges were breached.

The chair of the committee clearly overstepped his authority by ruling several amendments out of order on the grounds that they were not translated into French before they were moved and that they were not submitted with enough notice.

I refer the committee to Beauchesne's 695:

(2) The practice has been that Members proposing to introduce amendments have given them to the Chairman and to the clerk of the committee who ensures that they are translated, compiled and circulated for the information of the members of the committee.

Given the seriousness of this matter, I intend to rise in the House on a point of privilege this morning at 10 o'clock to move that the committee adjourn clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64 until a ruling on this breach of privilege has been made by the Speaker.

I move that this committee stand adjourned until the Speaker of the House has ruled on this point of privilege.

The Chair: There is a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Strahl: I'd like to debate that, if I could.

The Chair: Proceed, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I think last night I used words like ``this was an unprecedented breach of privilege''. None of our staff and none of my researchers have ever heard of a breach of privilege as significant as that which went on last night in the committee.

I brought to the committee a series of amendments that I prepared. I believe that they were all in the proper order and format.

They were in one language only. It's the only language I work in, so I don't apologize for that. But I do realize that one of the other members of the committee wanted to have them translated.

I suggested that they could be translated orally by the interpreters. I was willing to adjourn while they were translated officially, if that seemed better. I don't think there was anything out of order with the amendments themselves.

However, the chair ruled that he would not accept the amendments. I realize the committee agreed to back up the chairman's ruling on this, but I'd ask the committee members to think for a minute about what exactly this means.

You can laugh about it when you're in government, I suppose, but just think about this. It means you cannot bring amendments to the table to have them considered during your clause-by-clause.

The entire purpose of clause-by-clause is to consider amendments and the bill. It is even more the entire purpose when it is referred by the government after first reading.

We are not supposed to just rubber-stamp a government bill; we are supposed to help craft an entire bill, look into all aspects of it, determine purpose, give ideas, and debate pros and cons of every issue within every clause and every word, if we like, that we think is significant in the bill.

.0940

For the chairman to rule that I cannot bring amendments at the start of clause-by-clause because they are out of order and put them away - I don't know where they were; they were just put away somewhere - is just absolutely unacceptable.

I urge even the government members to consider what they are suggesting, which is that it is acceptable to bring amendments to the table and have them all summarily tossed in the garbage can while the committee ploughs ahead with its business.

It is an absolute breach of privilege not to be allowed to bring amendments to the table. It has never, as far as we can determine, been disallowed such that you can't bring amendments to the table.

Setting precedents is one thing; having open government is another. Encouraging free votes and all the other nice platitudes that might be written in different-coloured books - some of them are red - are pretty meaningless if, upon the start of clause-by-clause, which is how the work of Parliament goes on, I am not allowed to bring amendments to the table.

To add insult to injury - it's not like this has been dragging on for months and months - within two hours of clause-by-clause, we were down to five minutes of debate per clause. Again, that's just too preposterous to believe, but that's a separate issue.

Sometimes the government itself would have three or four amendments for a clause but it can't even speak to two or three of them because there's no time. It has no idea, I would propose, what it is amending.

The rest of us can't ask a question of our experts. We can't debate the issues at length. It's one thing to say you need time allocation if you have been working away for a week or two, or a month or something, and then it's said that we just must move on. There is some following precedence and some following reasons. But it is absolutely unacceptable to stifle debate on clause-by-clause with five minutes of total debate time. For a useful and meaningful amount of debate, it's just not acceptable.

I'd like to quote Speaker Fraser. On April 14, 1987, he said:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments, pro and con, and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

I would suggest that two hours of debate was not a reasonable length before we went to closure on debate.

I would say this bill is controversial for all the reasons we were trying to bring out yesterday. I could go into them at some length. This includes simple things such as a Decima poll that says 75% of Canadians are not in favour of it.

There's the fact that it is a major, controversial issue in the local Ontario election campaign. Mike Harris says he will abolish employment equity. The provincial Liberal leader says that she will severely cut back the employment equity provisions, and so on.

It is a serious, controversial issue as per Speaker Fraser's ruling. To say that it is not, to say that we'll just plough ahead with five minutes' debate because nobody cares, is just not true.

.0945

I will be going to the House at 10 o'clock to ask the Speaker to rule on this question of privilege. It is my absolute firm belief that he will rule that this committee will go back to clause 1 and will start over, as it should have, because there's absolutely no precedent to say that my amendments were out of order. There was nothing wrong with my amendments. They are part of the arguments pro and con. They are a reasonable effort on my part to bring attention to what I think are serious flaws in the bill. They are permissible as per precedent. They are in all ways in order.

To say ``Thank you for these amendments, I'll think I'll now toss them in the garbage can; they are all out of order, let's move ahead'' is absolutely unacceptable.

I cannot believe the ruling, Mr. Chairman. I cannot believe the committee backed up that ruling. That's why I have to go to the Speaker at 10 o'clock, and I would urge the other committee members to come as well, if they would like to get in on that part of the point of privilege. This is a serious, serious breach of privilege. I cannot do my job if I am not allowed to speak.

There were clauses last night, Mr. Chairman, where I could not raise two seconds of debate - not two seconds of debate. This committee should hang its head in shame that we will not take serious debate on entire clauses that strike to the essence of the bill, that they would say I am not allowed to speak a word. That's what happened last night. That is just totally unacceptable. It is totally unreasonable and the government side knows -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga -Maisonneuve): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

We have heard our colleague's grievance and I am ready to go to the House at 10 o'clock. I want him to know that if it is the tone he wants to adopt to work today, he's going to see considerable deterioration of our relations.

As members of the Official Opposition, we are not going to accept that the member bring a bundle of documents that are not translated. We have agreed that during our proceedings, if the member wants to bring amendments one by one, that were not available in the two official languages, he could do it. I am certain that he would have done the same if my document had been only in French. The member knows very well that a group of amendments must be presented in the two official languages.

If he wants us to go to the House on this matter, Mr. Chairman, we are going to discuss it with the Speaker. I am ready to follow him any time because I know that it is both a question of courtesy, of respect for francophones of this country and for the relations that the members of the committee have to maintain between themselves. I find it quite shameful, childish and immature to see the member come in this morning in front the of the committee and say that we didn't let him speak, when he has monopolized 80 to 85% of our time.

The truth, Mr. Chairman, is that the members of the Reform Party of Canada do not believe in employment equity. It is their privilege not to believe in it, and that says a lot about their ideology, but they do not believe in the principle of employment equity. They are going to adopt all the delaying tactics necessary to prevent the passing of the Bill. It is fair, the Opposition also will use such tactics at times. That you bring the debate on the non-respect of the francophones of this country is really a pity and very shameful and only shows the kind of party you represent.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: I'm not sure what point of order that was, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a point of debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, you undoubtedly don't understand anything.

[English]

The Chair: It's not a point of order. Proceed, please.

Mr. Strahl: The chairman received my amendments yesterday. The chairman ruled them out of order. That's the essence of the problem here. It's not a matter of -

The Chair: May I just get an indication from the member at what time does he intend to end debate on his privilege motion or point of order before the chair? He intended to leave at 10 o'clock. Would he like to debate until 10 o'clock?

Mr. Strahl: I will go to the House now, Mr. Chairman, in order to bring my breach of privilege to the Speaker. I do have to leave now.

.0950

I'm not sure whether anyone else wants to speak to this motion or not, but I think I have my points on the table. It's obviously, Mr. Chairman, a breach of my privileges. If I cannot speak, I cannot do my job. I have been stifled, I cannot bring amendments, and I cannot speak.

There were clauses about which I got to speak last night; there were clauses about which I did not get to say a word. That is totally unreasonable.

I will leave. I suggest the committee adjourn and come to the House for 10 a.m. That is my motion, but I must leave now before the vote.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, do you wish to continue debate on the motion -

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Strahl, at least wait until you hear the counter-arguments.

Mr. Strahl: I can't -

Ms Catterall: May I suggest that the record of the committee show quite clearly that Mr. Strahl took a disproportionate share of the committee's time last night, that he spoke more than all other members of the committee combined, and that he did it not in debate on the issues he says are so important. He did say it's unacceptable to stifle debate on clause-by-clause.

That is precisely what Mr. Strahl and his colleagues from the Reform Party did last night. They stifled debate on clause-by-clause; they did not allow this committee to proceed with its debate on clause-by-clause. For three hours they persisted in raising points of privilege.

Mr. Chair, the business of this committee was scheduled to go from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. yesterday. Before the committee meeting had even started, the Reform Party had organized to have members available through the night, until this morning. It was clear it was their intention not to allow this committee to debate, not to allow it to proceed with the business of Parliament. And if anybody was stifling the business of Parliament and obstructing the privileges of members of Parliament, it was the Reform Party.

For over three hours this committee was prevented from getting to its business by the tactics of the Reform Party.

Mr. Chair, we have wasted time on points of order; we have wasted time on recorded votes on every single motion. Now that's the right of any member of the committee, but it was clearly being used only to delay the business of Parliament in this committee.

The Chair: Are you ready for the debate on the motion to adjourn?

Mr. Epp (Elk Island): I would like to begin my entrance into this part of the debate by saying that it's one thing to say these are obstructionist tactics, but it's another thing when we believe very, very strongly and sincerely in what we're doing. I think, as my colleague has said, it's a severe breach of privilege if what I sincerely and strongly believe to be right, to be the wishes of the majority of the people in my constituency, to be right on behalf of the majority of Canadians across the country - when I believe that, and when I have been elected by my constituents, admittedly of a party that is not the governing party - but it was only 600 days ago that the Liberals were on this side. I'm sure they felt here as passionately about issues as they do now, if not more so. I think being smaller in number we have to work more intensely, and we do usually get a little more into it than when there are so many people - I know the Liberals right now, with their majority, have more than enough people.

An hon. member: On a point of order.

Mr. Epp: Let me get to the point. I don't want this member to interrupt.

The Chair: Are you about to conclude the debate on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we have to go to the House. I think that as members of the committee, we have to listen to our colleague's point of privilege and I suggest to adjourn until we can - Anyway, I for one, I am leaving.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, according to the rules of the committee in Beauchesne's, section 7, the committee has not issued a report yet, has not made a determination. Thus, should a witness refuse to attend or refuse to give evidence, the committee must report this fact to the House for immediate action.

The committee has not made a determination yet. How can we go to the House?

.0955

I am confident the Speaker will rule Mr. Fraser's filibustering out of order.

The committee has not made a determination yet, so if I could caution you to stay, Mr. Ménard, proceed with the debate.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I resent deeply the use of the word ``filibuster''.

What we are doing here is strongly putting forth a very important point of view. I'm here as a volunteer substitute on this committee because I too, even though this isn't my usual committee, believe deeply and sincerely this is bad legislation. What I want to be able to accomplish is, by debate and by motions to amend, to correct this legislation, or at least to minimize its damage. It's going to have ramifications for years to come across this whole country.

I'd like to refer to Standing Order 65, which has very great application to the issue before us now. It says,

All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the Chair.

It says all motions will be debated. For this committee to say we're only going to spend five minutes on a clause precludes debate on a motion to amend, a violation of Standing Order 65.

Mr. Chair, even though you gave that ruling and even though the committee upheld that ruling, it is in error. In this case, the majority is not right. It's a clear violation of the standing orders that govern us in this House.

Therefore, I move that this committee adjourn until we hear -

The Chair: That motion is out of order because your colleague already moved to adjourn.

Mr. Epp: Okay.

The Chair: I cannot accept a second motion to adjourn.

This is a classic example of filibustering.

Now, any further debate on the motion?

Mr. Epp: It was an error, sir. I didn't mean that.

The Chair: Apologies are accepted.

Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): A point of order. I came in rather late. Could I hear the motion that's being debated?

The Chair: It came from your party. I would assume it is best known to your party.

Mrs. Hayes: I entered the room after the discussion began.

The Chair: The motion was a motion to adjourn.

The Clerk of the Committee: The motion is that the committee adjourn to the chamber at 10 a.m. Mr. Strahl intends to raise a question of privilege concerning committee proceedings.

The Chair: The chair would like to make a few comments.

For the record, I would just like to say that the first time it was clear to everybody that when Mr. Strahl tried to put a two-inch document, single-paged amendments, amendments that at first glance really looked like words thrown at random -

Mr. Epp: That's a judgment call and unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Could the member please give some courtesy to the chair?

Mr. Epp: I will, but don't make incorrect accusations, sir.

The Chair: The member submitted the amendments to the committee knowing he was not a member of this committee at that time, the proper legal form has not been signed, and, in a sense illegally, was trying to tell the committee that it could introduce amendments that were not really -

Mrs. Hayes: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The use of the term ``illegally'' - I don't know if that is appropriate, nor should it stand on the record. I don't think there is any indication that is so. We have to watch what is said and what is done in this place.

Just as you comment on our activities, I think we can hold you to honesty and integrity in what you say and do on your side.

Ms Catterall: A point of order, Mr. Chair. The chair is not making comments on the amendments; the chair is explaining the ruling it made last night, which was sustained by this committee.

Mr. Chair, I suggest that explanation is unnecessary and we can proceed to the vote.

.1000

The Chair: As I said, Mrs. Catterall, the first set of motions was offered when the member was not a member of this committee, as required by the rules of order.

Thereafter, the form was given, he became a member, and at that time he resubmitted the amendments. Looking at the amendments, I felt it was obvious it would be trivial and that it would make a mockery of the proceedings of the committee. After the chair made that ruling, it was challenged. The ruling was sustained by the committee.

The committee now votes on the motion to adjourn.

Mrs. Hayes: A point of order. Having not had the opportunity until now, I would like to debate this motion, if I may. I would like to draw the committee's attention to Standing Order 116:

116. 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.

If we go to Standing Order 65, this actually refers back to part of our original debate within this committee:

65. All motions -

Mr. Wood (Nipissing): A point of order. I believe the hon. member is not speaking to the motion of adjournment. Could I have a ruling on that?

The Chair: The point of order is sustained. The chair rules that the motion is already moot. It is past 10 a.m. and the motion was to adjourn at 10 a.m.; therefore the motion is moot.

Mr. Epp: A point of order. I move that this ruling be reported to the House, pursuant to the Standing Orders, as a report so that we can hear the judgment of the Speaker on the activities of this committee on this issue.

The Chair: What is the purpose of your submission?

Mr. Epp: The purpose of my motion is very clear; there is a breach of parliamentary privilege going on here. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this being done correctly. I can empathize, and I understand the frustration that you as chair and members of the governing side must feel, because they have a piece of legislation and they want to - if I can use the term, for lack of any better one - ram it through.

It's unfortunate that there is not a clear representation on behalf of the people here. I believe the function of the opposition is to draw to the attention of the House and committee the issues and areas in which there is room for improvement. I'll say it as gently as I can: this legislation needs to be improved.

The reason why I want this to go to the House for a ruling is because there is a dramatic - in fact, in your words, there's a classic example here of breach of privilege. As a member of Parliament properly elected, I do not have the opportunity to put forward amendments, to have them properly debated according to Standing Order 65, and other standing orders, and we are really being prevented from doing our work.

I would also like to add that all rulings of the chairman may be appealed to the committee, which has been done. It says here that there is no appeal to the House from the chairman's ruling except by way of report from the committee. I simply submit that if you and the members of the government feel strongly that you are right here, then you should have no hesitation to report this to the Speaker, because the Speaker will then rule in your favour if you are right. But if you are not right, then I appeal to you, as the chairman and as one having considerable responsibility in this issue, that you then would submit to the ruling of the Speaker.

.1005

Above all things, I'm sure we would agree on both sides that we want to keep this a democratic parliamentary House. We don't want to have the accusations that plagued the Mulroney years come on this Parliament. We don't want to behave in a totally autocratic and undemocratic method.

I've made the motion that this chairman's ruling be reported to the House and that we await that ruling. That's my motion.

Ms Catterall: The motion is out of order. There is a motion on the floor. Can we deal with the motion on the floor?

The Chair: Mrs. Catterall, I ruled the earlier motion moot. By the time the motion was about to be put to a vote, it was past 10 a.m.; therefore, the motion to adjourn at 10 a.m. became moot.

I entertain this motion. The motion is whether we shall now, on his submission, report the ruling of the chair to the House and defer further proceedings of the committee. The committee will make a decision on whether to now report the ruling of the chair to the House or say nay to the motion of the member.

I would like to put -

Mrs. Hayes: Debate?

The Chair: I thought he called for a vote.

Mr. Epp: I moved a motion.

The Chair: Did you call for a vote or not?

Mr. Epp: No. I made a motion, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Hayes: I would like to support what my colleague said. Again, I think trying to work together to make some sense of what is happening here is perhaps a challenge to all of us, and yet underneath all the activity here are, I believe, the principles of democracy, the rules of the House, the rules of committee procedures. I think it's important that we take the time to consider all of these things. To take it outside this room for a ruling and to another place, i.e., the House, is most appropriate.

In that regard, I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion, if I may, that this committee report to the House no later than May 20, 1995.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, can I just add to the amendment? I appreciate my colleague bringing it forward, because it's important to put a time line on this lest it never be done. I simply say on behalf of the motion, as it would be if the amendment passed, that I think this is very important for members opposite too.

I realize there is a majority over there, and we're in the minority. Unless I can persuade them, the motion will fail. So I'm now trying to persuade the members opposite that this is in fact, on principle, the right thing to do because of the controversy here. The controversy is not generated by the fact that we have dominated the debate. The controversy is generated by the fact that this opportunity for debate has been stifled - contrary to the rules of the House.

That is why it is very important that we submit this in a report to the Speaker for his ruling and that it be done forthwith so that the democratic process can proceed here.

I sincerely and strongly urge the members opposite to support both the amendment for the time and the motion itself so that this matter can be laid to rest.

The Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment to the motion?

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Can we have the motion and amendment read again, please?

The Clerk: The motion by Mr. Epp is that the chairman's ruling be reported to the House. The vote is on the amendment by Mrs. Hayes, that the report be made no later than May 20.

.1010

The Chair: First we have to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Epp: Can we record the vote on this, please? This is not a time-waster; this is to get it on the record.

Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2

Mr. Epp: Oh, come on, you guys. Don't you want to do it right?

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: There is a call for a vote. I think a point of order at this time -

Mr. Epp: Well, the vote has not yet been called on the motion.

The Chair: That is what the chair is about to do.

Mr. Epp: I just have a request for information and for confirmation. I detect that the member opposite may not be properly registered as a member of this committee. Could we just have confirmation that he is or is not?

The Clerk: Which member is that?

Mr. Epp: I don't know his name.

The Clerk: Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Epp: Yes.

The Clerk: Yes, he is.

Mr. Epp: Okay, thank you. I just wanted that clarification.

The Chair: On the motion to refer this....

Motion negatived

On clause 10 - Employment equity plan

Mr. Maloney: I refer you to amendment 010-008.32a. It again deals with the French version of clause 10 in Bill C-64. I suggest it be amended by striking out line 32 on page 8 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

«que dans la population apte au travail»

[English]

Again, this change is for consistency as a result of the amendment to clause 3 on page 3, which we passed earlier.

The Chair: Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Epp: A point of order. Due to the fact that my colleague has gone to the House to seek clarification with the Speaker on this point of privilege, I would like to move that we adjourn until he returns or we have word from the House as to the outcome of this.

The Chair: The motion to adjourn was entertained earlier.

Mr. Epp: This is a different motion, sir. That other one was to adjourn until 10 o'clock. I'm now saying I move that we adjourn until such time as the member returns or until we receive word from the House as to our right to proceed.

The Chair: The motion is out of order because there is already a motion before us, and that is whether clause 10 shall carry.

Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Epp: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding - and I stand to be corrected by the people here - that a motion to adjourn takes precedence and is always in order.

The Clerk: A pure motion to adjourn would take precedence. However, a motion that attaches conditions is a substantive motion and is not in order if another motion is before the committee.

Mr. Epp: Okay, I thank you. I'm corrected.

The Chair: Is there debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 10 as amended agreed to

Mr. Epp: A point of order. On clause 10, are there not some amendments from the government side?

.1015

The Chair: We just voted on that and it was carried.

Mr. Epp: Okay.

On clause 11 - Reasonable progress

Mrs. Hayes: There's a motion put forward by Mr. Strahl. I guess it's clause 11...clause 10.

Mr. Epp: Could we have a recorded vote on motion 10, please?

The Chair: We're already on clause 11. I think it's too late.

Mrs. Hayes: Clause 10, page 8 - an amendment put forward by Mr. Strahl, who isn't here. If I could move that motion...

The Chair: Clause 10 carried as amended already.

Mrs. Hayes: Okay. There was one for clause 11 as well.

The Chair: What is the amendment, please?

Mrs. Hayes: That clause 11 be amended by striking out lines 3 to 7 on page 9 and substituting the following:

11.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act but subject to subsection (2), every employer who prepares an equity plan shall determine with the agreement of its employees' representatives the rate of progress that will constitute reasonable progress for the purposes of paragraph 12(b) and shall set out that rate in its employment equity plan.

(2) Where a determination cannot be made by an employer under subsection (1) because an agreement referred to in that subsection cannot be reached between the employer and its employees' representatives, the employer shall so advise the Commission who shall, after reviewing the equity plan, make the determination.

The second part of it was by striking out line 12 on page 9 and substituting the following:

regular basis to ensure that reasonable

I believe this amendment is to create, rather than an atmosphere of conflict or coercion, an atmosphere of cooperation in the construction and implementation and assessment of unemployment equity type arrangements, whereby employees and employers work together - I should sneak a quick look at the original in clause 11 - and put forward the notion of a rate of progress as decided upon by employee and employer as a valid addition to the principles that are espoused here. I ask for comment from the other committee members on that.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to debate this. Clause 11, as it stands right now, says simply that an employer shall ensure that employment equity would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress. It lacks definition. What it is saying is that if this is passed, the employer can just sort of say this is my definition of progress and that's it. We feel there's a real valid point to be made here that there should be a further definition or at least an increase in the degree to which we are recommending a process; what process should the employer go through.

You'll notice in subclause (1) of the amendment that it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision, every employer who prepares shall determine, with the agreement of its employees' representatives, the rate of progress that will constitute reasonable progress.

In other words, the employer alone cannot act arbitrarily in stating what is a definition of progress in terms of reaching these equity plans.

There's another very important aspect to this and that is that we are going - and I'm speaking like a Liberal here now - contrary to the red book. Hopefully this should strike a harp with the members opposite so that they would support this.

.1020

You see, the red book indicated that business is important and that there is a universal cry against the intrusion of government in the way businesses have lack of freedom in operating their business.

I recall a statement in the Minister of Finance's recent report on making business work in Canada. One of his guiding principles is to reduce the amount of regulation from government and to give greater flexibility and internal autonomy to the businessperson.

If you look at both of these amendments, there is a simple requirement for the employer, the business owner. We know that 80% of our jobs are created by small business. We're giving an opportunity here for the businessperson to work together with his own employees rather than having to answer to a government bureaucracy on whether or not the equity targets are being met and the definition is correct.

I would also like to say that there's a clause here that says that if this cannot be done, then and only then does the employer report to the commission. After reviewing this, it shall make the determination.

So I would again just appeal to my majority members over there. Stop to think about what we're doing here. Let's not just go clickety-clack, bing-bing-bing. Let's think very seriously about all the implications of this for the individual businessperson and, more importantly, for the employees who are affected by these quotas, these new criteria for selecting employees. Let's think about the implications of that.

Again it's just a simple appeal for them to consider this as being a clause worthy of support.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Epp: Yes, it shall.

The Chair: Those opposed say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Chair: The nays have it.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that when you do a vote, you first call for the yeas, and you didn't do that.

The Chair: No, I asked, shall the amendment carry? Obviously the answer is either yes or no.

Mr. Epp: Okay, that was yes and there were no nays, so then you -

The Chair: No.

Mr. Epp: - should have -

No, Mr. Chairman, I correct you gently but sincerely. When you said, shall the clause carry, we said yes and there was not a single no on the other side.

So for you then to proceed to say, all those who say nay, is incorrect. If you're going to go to that second stage, which you would normally do only when there is a question as to whether the yeas or nays got it, then you would have said, all those in favour say yea, all those opposed say nay.

You jumped directly into the nays and then you say it's defeated. That is incorrect. That motion was passed and I ask you to so rule.

The Chair: Let me put it very clearly.

Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour -

Mr. Epp: No, you cannot just simply revote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Well, the chair has made a ruling that the amendment is lost.

Mr. Epp: The fact of the matter is that the vote didn't go the way you wanted, so now you're going to vote again.

The Chair: The vote -

Mr. Epp: That vote -

The Chair: No, no, no.

Mr. Epp: - is carried.

The Chair: I was trying to heed your advice. In the spirit of goodwill I will agree to put it back with the consent of the committee. If that is refused, the ruling of the chair stands.

Do you want to challenge the ruling of the chair?

Mr. Epp: I challenge the ruling of the chair because you declared a motion defeated that was in fact passed.

The Chair: Shall the ruling of the chair stand?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Maloney: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mrs. Hayes called for a recorded vote on that.

The Chair: Did you want a recorded vote, Mrs. Hayes?

Some hon. members: Yes, we do.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I did not hear that. I apologize.

A recorded vote.

Mrs. Hayes: That was after the challenge to the chair, though, in -

The Chair: After the challenge or before? According to the -

Mrs. Hayes: It was after the vote was determined to have been made, but I guess the point of my colleague -

The Chair: My apologies.

Mrs. Hayes: - was that the vote should not have proceeded at that point.

The Chair: The recorded vote is on the amendment.

Mr. Epp: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. The call for the recorded vote came after you did this and that's when she said that.

But I was challenging the prior ruling, which is incorrect and that's what we're on now.

The Chair: Would you like me to hear your call for the recorded vote or not?

Mrs. Hayes: I think if the call for the vote or the voting procedure was wrong, then we probably shouldn't record what was wrong.

.1025

I put that to the chair.

Mr. Epp: That amendment passed, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, I ruled that the amendment did not carry.

Mr. Epp: You cannot do that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: That is what the chair heard.

Mr. Epp: No, that's a violation of democracy of the worst case. You've just said you don't accept the vote of the committee. You can't do that.

The Chair: Okay, the ruling of the chair - On a point of order, Ms Hayes has withdrawn her request for a recorded vote.

Did I get it clearly now, Ms Hayes?

Mrs. Hayes: There's no use having a recorded vote because I think the vote was unanimous, according to what I heard.

The Chair: We will proceed to the challenge to the ruling of the chair.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

Mr. Epp: This is incredible! You know, Mr. Chairman, this reminds me of a union meeting I attended one time where there was a vote -

The Chair: No debates during the vote, please.

Mr. Epp: There was a vote -

The Chair: The vote is being taken.

Mr. Epp: No, but I'm not going to give up.

The Chair: The vote is being taken.

Mr. Epp: This is wrong, this is so wrong!

The Chair: The vote is being taken.

Mr. Epp: The vote is not acceptable. You can't -

The Chair: Are you challenging the ruling of the chair?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, you cannot just chuck democracy out of the window. You cannot!

The Chair: Those opposed to -

Mr. Epp: You cannot! There's a whole committee -

The Chair: - sustaining the ruling of the chair?

Mr. Epp: The whole committee cannot -

The Chair: The ruling of the chair is sustained.

Mr. Epp: No, it is not!

The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I move that this matter be immediately referred to the House.

The Chair: Shall clause 11 -

Mr. Epp: You must accept a vote that the motion -

The Chair: Mr. Epp, I would advise to please listen carefully in the spirit of decorum.

Mr. Epp: And I invite you to listen carefully and obey democratic principles. This is not acceptable. I'm getting upset, and I'm sorry because I don't usually get upset. But this is going crazy here and it's not acceptable.

This is the Parliament of Canada. This is not a kangaroo court; this is not a little group of high school kids conducting a little vote in their little Red Cross meeting. This is the Parliament of Canada. This is a committee -

The Chair: Shall clause 11 -

Mr. Epp: - of the Parliament of Canada.

The Chair: - carry as amended?

Mr. Epp: And the chairman does not have the right to override votes in the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Epp, I appeal to your sense of cooperation.

Mr. Epp: I move that this committee refer this to the House immediately and that it not proceed until this matter is ruled on.

The Chair: Mr. Epp, we are already in the midst of calling a vote.

Shall clause 11 carry?

Mr. Epp: That is not acceptable.

The Chair: Those in favour of the motion say yea.

Mr. Epp: That's not acceptable.

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Epp: You can't just say, I'm going to the next vote.

The Chair: Those opposed to the motion say nay.

Clause 11 agreed to

Mr. Epp: No! You can't.

On clause 12 - Implementation and monitoring of plan

The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?

Mr. Wood: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Wood.

An hon. member: An amendment is out of order.

Mr. Wood: The motion to amend clause 12 is amendment 012-009.09a. It is moved that clause 12 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 9 on page 9 and substituting the following:

(a) make all reasonable efforts to implement

The rationale behind that is that apparently the existing wording calls for an employer to make only reasonable efforts. If you remember, this has been criticized by many witnesses as possibly too low a standard.

The optics are clearly better if the act requires all reasonable efforts, even though the wording may not make much difference in law. A higher standard appears to be required.

Also, the Ontario employment equity Act requires an employer to make all reasonable efforts to implement the plan, so this is bringing it in line. This is a highly visible apparent difference in the standard required by the two acts.

The Chair: Is there debate on the amendment? Ms Hayes.

Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in what my colleague has said. It's interesting too that he's referred to the Ontario legislation. In other discussions in which I've been involved with this committee the Ontario legislation has actually been ruled as inappropriate for us to talk about, at length in any case. So perhaps it's not even necessary to bring it into why we do what we do.

.1030

Certainly, when I look at the difference in the two statements, ``making reasonable efforts'' and ``making all reasonable efforts'', I wonder what kind of a list there is in the definition of ``all reasonable efforts''. Who has that list of what is reasonable and what isn't, and who will check off whether each and every one of those efforts has indeed been addressed by an employer?

I find it rather Draconian in the sense that this too is liable to a fine if by some list in somebody's office perhaps someone didn't, for example, put a sign in some rural location or advertise in a certain place or not make some quite expensive accommodations, which according to one person might be reasonable but to another clearly would not be reasonable.

The definition of ``all reasonable efforts'' makes me very nervous, and the lack of definition I find difficult to accept.

Perhaps I could ask our witnesses from the department what, in the past, has been the standard acceptance of the meaning of ``reasonable''. Perhaps they could provide their opinion on how this could be expanded by adding the word ``all'' to ``reasonable''.

Ms Gay Stinson (Director General, Employment Equity, Department of Human Resources Development): This is essentially a matter in which there has been no experience to date, because it is a brand-new requirement in the field. It therefore isn't already being implemented.

Mrs. Hayes: As this was struck by the department in the first version, what would have been understood by ``reasonable''?

Ms Stinson: Could you repeat the question, please.

Mrs. Hayes: There must have been some notion of what ``reasonable'' would be with the original drafting of this. Do you have any input as to what that would have been?

Ms Stinson: I think perhaps the best answer is a legal understanding of how ``reasonable'' is interpreted.

Mr. Michael Dixon (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): ``Reasonable'' simply means practicable, sensible. The addition of the word ``all'' I don't think is a significant qualifier that would change the standard of what an employer would be expected to realize in terms of the progress of his plan.

From examining the cases in which the expressions ``reasonable efforts'' and ``all reasonable efforts'' have been used...there's no discernible difference. Basically what is looked at in every case is whether whatever was done was reasonable, was practicable, given the particular context in which this expression was used.

In answer to your question, ``reasonable'' is given its dictionary meaning of practicable and sensible.

Mrs. Hayes: The point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is the difference between an objective and a subjective interpretation of words, in the sense of an employer, in good faith, coming to an implementation plan and thinking what he is doing is reasonable...as opposed to some kind of outside objective list of ``all reasonable''....

Again, as we have compliance with outside agencies here, it seems to take it from the hands of an employer acting in good faith, doing what he feels is necessary in his workplace, to become an external judgment of what he in fact can do that's practical, or whatever the definition in a dictionary is.

.1035

So I see it as dangerous in that it becomes a coercive force as opposed to a cooperative, well-meaning employer effort to accommodate good work practices in his workplace.

The Chair: The time for debate has elapsed. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs. Hayes: I'd like a recorded vote.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 12 as amended agreed to

On clause 13 - Periodic review and revision of plan

Mr. Maloney: I move amendment G-12, that Bill C-64 be amended by adding immediately after line 26 on page 9 the following:

13.1 Every employer shall provide information to its employees explaining the purpose of employment equity and shall keep its employees informed about measures the employer has undertaken or is planning to undertake to implement employment equity and the progress the employer has made in implementing employment equity.

The rationale for this, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee heard from all the stakeholders, employers, unions and designated groups that communication and education are important for the success of the employment equity plan. Adding this new clause makes the provision of information one of the employer obligations in the bill.

Other clauses ensure that unions are consulted and have an obligation to work with the employer and give or administer the responsibility to carry out and provide advice and assistance.

The Chair: My apologies, Mr. Maloney, but this is a new clause. I was just advised by the clerk that we shall first proceed on clause 13. This is not an amendment to clause 13.

I'm sorry, I have to rule that premature at this point.

Mr. Epp: Are you signifying it's time for debate on clause 13?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Epp: Again, I talk now to the members who have the power to change these things.

In this clause we have several references to short-term numerical goals. In other words, we're talking here about numbers. If you look at this legislation at the beginning, it defines who are the members in the targeted groups - females, disabled persons, persons of certain ethnic backgrounds, namely natives. These are listed in the definitions at the beginning of the bill.

Now, what we're saying here is that we have to have numerical goals, but if you look at it in total, at what this bill is doing, those numerical goals are set based on proportion of population and based on an undefined region from which that population is to be drawn.

For example, you can go to certain communities in this great country of ours where the predominance of people will be natives. I've been in those communities in Alberta. It's almost all natives. In that particular case, because they are a listed group here, the numerical goal could be that you need to have 100% of your employees be natives.

I just beg you to consider the wisdom of having such a rule. What happens if, in an organization that's doing business in that place or maybe a school that's operating there, there's a very good, qualified person who's not native but who could really add substantially to the education of the people in that business if he or she were to get a job in that school or college. Now you're saying there's a numerical goal here.

.1040

Furthermore, the numerical goals are based on what I call ``undefined data''. How do you know what the proportion is?

In order to be in compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act, one of the features of this bill is that no one is required to state their ethnic background. That's voluntary.

Look at this scene. Here we have some arbitrary numerical target set. Let's say, for example, there's an employer. Furthermore, there are 100 employees in this organization and the target is 20 people. Let's say that 20 people of this target group apply for and get hired.

Actually, the target has been met. But let's say that 10 of those people will not voluntarily declare themselves in accordance with this legislation. Even though in actuality the target has been met, the employer cannot report it because the numerical goal hasn't been reached due to the fact that 10 of the people have chosen, and it's their legal right to do so, to not self-declare.

Consequently, when the next position comes open, even though the target is already met in actuality, this numerical goal-setting prevents that organization from hiring the person most qualified because he's not in the group whose target has already actually been met, but not reported as such.

Gentlemen, on the other side, this is a serious flaw. Appealing to your logic, to your appeal to good common decent decision-making on behalf of Canadian people and Canadian business people, you must reject this clause. It is not a good clause.

Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 1

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move a motion.

The Chair: No, there is a motion -

Mr. Epp: No, there is no motion. You just had a vote, sir.

The Chair: I interrupted Mr. Maloney. I recognized him earlier. He introduced a -

Mr. Epp: That's on clause 13. We're not up to clause 13 yet.

The Chair: We just finished clause 13.

Mr. Epp: Yes. His was on clause 14, and we're not on clause 14 yet.

The Chair: It's a new clause.

Mrs. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the committee immediately move to consider the main estimates, which is what we were supposed to do today, was it not, at one point?

The Chair: Last night I gave an indication the minister could not make it here this morning. I have been advised that it cannot be made on a point of order. So if we can proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, the chair would appreciate it.

Mr. Maloney: I move that new clause 13.1 of Bill C-64 be amended by adding immediately after line 26, on page 9, the following information about employment equity:

13.1 Every employer shall provide information to its employees explaining the purpose of employment equity and shall keep its employees informed about measures the employer has undertaken or is planning to undertake to implement employment equity and the progress the employer has made in implementing employment equity.

I went through the rationale previously, so I don't think it necessary to go over it again, unless my friends would like me to.

The Chair: Is there any debate on this new clause?

Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): As a matter of convenience for myself, Mr. Chairman, I just sat down here and didn't quite hear the full motion. If the member would kindly point that out to me, I would like to pick up from where he left off.

.1045

The Chair: It is G-12.

Mr. Hanger: I see G-14, Mr. Chair, but I don't see G-12.

The Chair: The clerk will assist you.

Mr. Hanger: Thank you.

The Chair: We just passed clause 13. We are on new clause 13.1.

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witnesses if this is a substantive change to clause 13, and if so, how much of a change?

Ms Stinson: This is an addition to the bill. It is not simply a matter of translation or other technical matters. So yes, it is an addition and you could say it is an addition of substance. It is not, however, a substantial new obligation in terms of the nature of the job that is required of an employer in order to design and implement an employment equity program.

What it does is make it clear that in the process of designing and implementing a plan it is important, and with this addition it is in fact essential, that the employer provide information to its employees, whether those employees are within a bargaining agent or they are employee representatives representing employees.

Mr. Hanger: How might this be monitored? What action would be taken to force compliance on an employer?

Ms Stinson: I've had to consult with my legal counsel to make sure I was clear in giving this answer. It appears there is a subsequent amendment later on to deal with the way in which this would be monitored, and in fact a proposal is going to be made later in these proceedings that deals with that.

Mr. Hanger: To be quite blunt about it, then it would require a bureaucracy, if you will, to be assigned or appointed to handle these regulations in this particular bill to make sure employers comply. Is that the bottom line?

Ms Stinson: These are not regulations, these are requirements in the statute, and the statute does provide for the Human Rights Commission to undertake monitoring of compliance and negotiating compliance and enforcing where necessary. This would be one of those aspects according to a provision that will come up later in the series of proposed amendments.

Mr. Hanger: Has anyone assessed the size of the bureaucracy that will be required to monitor, to force compliance, and then of course the human rights commissions, the hearings? Has anyone assessed the cost to the taxpayer on this kind of legislation?

Ms Stinson: Yes, there were discussions and estimates made during the period of time that we were developing this proposal. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is not being given any new resources to undertake this new task.

.1050

There was careful consideration of the rebalancing and redeployment of resources. I believe Mr. Yalden has indicated that he can undertake these duties from within existing resource levels. In other words, during the discussion on cost impact, it was determined that no new resources will be necessary, whether that is from within the Human Rights Commission or within our department, HRD, in order to have this take effect and be implemented.

Mr. Hanger: Will any of these regulations, these statutes, sections of the statute be enforced by the provincial government or the provinces that may have human rights commissions? Will they be monitored -

Mr. Dixon: No, the only private sector employers who are covered by this bill are employers who fall within the federally regulated sector. The provincial human rights tribunals, say the Ontario Employment Equity Commission, have no jurisdiction over these employers because they're in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction in terms of -

Mr. Hanger: So there will be no assignments, no direction given to any provincial government to monitor, to enforce?

Mr. Dixon: No, they have no jurisdiction over this group of employees.

Mr. Hanger: It will strictly be a federal bureaucracy. I'm curious as a -

The Chair: The time for debate has elapsed and -

Mr. Hanger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think something has been missed here. Certainly I believe these witnesses can enlighten this committee.

I believe the outline on estimates, on costs and everything dealing with this piece of legislation since studies have been done should be laid on the table in front of the committee. I would like to make the request through you, Mr. Chairman, that the witnesses do so.

The Chair: Well -

Mr. Hanger: I made the point, Mr. Chairman, that this must be a substantial cost to the taxpayer. They indicated to me that a study was done in this regard on costs. They advised me that there was no increase in bureaucracy, that all of these present tribunals, the present commission and bureaucracy, would be able to handle the monitoring, the complaints that would come forward, etc.

I would like to see, as I'm sure the rest of the committee would, those cost estimates and the study that was done. I believe it's incumbent upon this committee to look at those costs, because I don't believe that is the case. I believe there will be undue costs involved here in bureaucracy increases, hearings, and you name it.

I assume the Human Rights Commission, as it sits, is a quasi-judicial body and certainly there's going to be a bureaucracy around it. I cannot see how the size of the commission or the bureaucracy would not increase given the fact that we have all this legislation.

So my request through you, Mr. Chairman, to the witnesses is that they supply those studies that were done to this committee for our further deliberation.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, the chair would like to advise you that the minister in fact is due to be examined on the estimates in a week or two from now, before the end of the month. I would suggest that at that time the minister could be probed on these very issues, if you so wish.

Mr. Hanger: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but I also recognize the power of the committee when it comes to obtaining this kind of information. I think it would be incumbent upon the witnesses, through you, Mr. Chairman, to supply that to the committee in advance. That's my request.

Mrs. Hayes: On a point of order as well, Mr. Chairman -

The Chair: Is there a call for a point of order before that?

Mr. Hanger: Mine was a point of order in the sense that you had cut off my debate, but through my questioning, Mr. Chairman, I think other things arose here that would be important for us to look into further.

The Chair: I think I will rule your point of order out of order because the time for debate has elapsed.

Mr. Hanger: What about my request, Mr. Chairman? I think it is a logical request.

The Chair: But I cannot consider the request at this point only because we are in the midst of debate and a vote.

I will entertain the point of order from Ms Hayes.

.1055

Mrs. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, previous to this and reflecting my colleague's concern of cost and what this bill will entail in that respect, I made a motion, which you ruled out of order. I would ask the chair on what basis he ruled on my motion that we consider the main estimates. Would he please clarify that.

The Chair: When did you raise that motion?

Mrs. Hayes: I raised it just before we came to this clause. If you recall, I had moved that the committee immediately consider the main estimates, and you ruled that out of order.

The Chair: Indeed. In section 318 of Beauchesne's, paragraph 2, it says: ``A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion...''.

Mr. Hanger: I feel that my request is a very legitimate one. We're sitting in a committee here to examine a bill at the expense of the taxpayer. I believe there is necessary information we should be looking at, and you reject my plea to you to have these witnesses supply information that is vital to the debate.

I'm finding it rather unsettling, Mr. Chairman, because I think that is not the purpose of this committee.

Mrs. Hayes: Could I answer to our previous discussion as well?

The Chair: When the chair has made a ruling, if members of the committee are disposed to challenge the ruling, they challenge it, but the chair cannot engage in a one-to-one debate with members of the committee.

Mrs. Hayes: To continue my point of order, in questioning your reasoning, perhaps if I put a notice of motion forward to introduce the motion outside a point of order, can the chair advise when that motion can be put forward?

The Chair: I cannot entertain that. It's by way of information, certainly. When we have a recess I can discuss it with you.

To follow the proceedings of the committee, however, I would appreciate it if we now go to the motion, because the time for debate has elapsed.

Shall the amendment be carried?

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman -

The Chair: I have called for the vote.

Mr. Hanger: On a point of order, this is the most undemocratic -

The Chair: I have called for the vote.

Mr. Hanger: - unresponsive committee.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Hanger: I, along with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, will not participate any further. We will be leaving as of now.

The Chair: Shall the vote -

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Chairman, we are asking legitimate questions to debate this bill and its amendments. As of this point forward -

The Chair: The time for debate has elapsed.

Mr. Hanger: - because it is an undemocratic process, we are walking out the door.

The Chair: The time for debate has elapsed. Shall the amendment carry?

Order, please. Shall the motion on the new clause by Mr. Maloney carry?

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you have a motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes. It is motion number C013-009.26a, which is the following: «Where an employer has prepared or revised its employment equity plan, the employer shall cause a copy of the plan, as the case may be, to be sent forthwith to the Commission.»

You will understand that the purpose of the motion is to ensure that in every circumstance, the commission has, for each private sector employer, the employment equity plan.

I dare hope that the government will welcome my amendment 13.1, on page B-3.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready for the vote?

Motion negatived

.1100

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Can I know why?

[English]

Can I know why? It's a very good amendment. I don't understand.

On clause 14 - Consultation with employee representatives

The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard: I think there was for the Bloc Québécois two possible amendments. I would like to submit the amendment number C014-009.37a, on page B-5.

What this amendment adds, and I wish to inform the Chair that depending on the positive or negative reception it will get, the Bloc Québécois will issue a dissident opinion or not. So it is really our most important amendment in this process.

The amendment is the following: «Where the employees are represented by a bargaining agent, the bargaining agent shall participate in a consultation under subsection (1). We understand that it doesn't mean necessarily a form of comanagement and we would like the employer and the employees' representative to implement and undertake jointly a revision of the employment equity plan.

I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is the most important for the Bloc Québécois.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion? Is the committee ready for the vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, I understand that we should proceed quickly but we need some explanations. I thought, following the discussions we have had with the Chair and the members of government, that the members were going to welcome this amendment and I would like to discuss it. Otherwise, that could lead to a question of our participation vs the proceedings.

I had indications that the government was going to welcome this amendment and I would like to get some information.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: The concern of the government is that this changes the role of the union too much. It gives them perhaps too much influence. It goes towards co-management.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Let's put the question differently: What does the government intend to accept in the philosophy that the Bloc Québécois suggests? What amendment is the government going to accept?

[English]

The Chair: Any explanation, Mr. Maloney?

Mr. Maloney: This would be clause 14.

The Chair: Yes, amendment to clause 14.

Mr. Maloney: This is where you're striking out lines 37 to 45?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, on page B-5.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: It makes the participation of employee representatives mandatory in the implementation and the revision of the plan. Is that correct? Is that the spirit of your...? This is not consultation, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is not a co-management. On B-5 you can read, at sub-paragraph 3a), that we admit with the government... In fact, the philosophy is the following: We would like the legislation to contain a formal mechanism so that the employees would be participating in the setting up implementation and revision of the employment equity plan.

.1105

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua (York North): Basically you see it as a joint responsibility of the employer and the employee. You see it as co-management.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Not co-management. Besides, I don't understand why the term co-management appears in the legislation. The term co-management must necessarily mean participation and a sharing of profits. So, there is no reference to that in the amendments put forward by the Bloc québécois.

May be we could ask our witnesses, if you'll allow me, what meaning the legislation gives to co-management? As for me, I always thought that co-management required participation to benefits and sharing the business ownership, which is not the case when you ask that, jointly, the employer and the employees prepare an employment equity plan.

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua: Perhaps we can ask for clarification.

Mr. Dixon: Co-management would imply the participation of both the employer and the employees' representatives in basically the management decisions - the hiring, promotion, recruitment.

As the bill has been drafted, it does not contemplate that the role of the employees' representatives would extend the actual decision-making with respect to who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets recruited, who actually goes on training - all the various operational decisions to implement the plan. The provision as currently drafted provides for consultation to obtain the views of the employees' representatives.

The amendment proposed here, B-5, while it refers in subclause 14(3) to a consultation, under subclause 14(1) as not being co-management - That provision is then followed by this new subclause 14(4), which clearly goes beyond consultation and involves the actual involvement of the employees' representatives in the implementation of the plan.

That joint implementation would imply a joint decision-making on the hiring, promotion, recruitment, etc.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No. The word ``co-management'' must necessarily mean first that there is an obligation to a joint decision making, which is not the meaning of the amendment, and co-management also means profit sharing which is not either the meaning of the amendment.

The amendment follows what the unions came to tell us. To obtain employment equity, the employees must first be informed. So we have now an amendment which forces the employers to implement information mechanisms.

In a second stage for its implementation, there should be a business culture in order for the members of the designated groups and the management to believe in it. I don't believe that when we say that the employer and the employees' representatives must jointly undertake its implementation, it means for the Bloc québécois, that the decision making must be made jointly. It only means an obligation with regard to participation and consultation.

The unions thought that the word ``consultation'' was perhaps a bit weak and soft.

The government should accept this amendment because it is an amendment which, deep down, invites us to understand that the employment equity is only possible if the employers and the employees have the will to implement an employment equity plan.

Can we imagine employment equity in any kind of business, if the workers do not participate and are not concerned by the decisions taken.

The government should be fair and accept the principles of minimum equity implied in the bill and welcome clause 14 which is, I remind you, a very important amendment for the Bloc québécois.

The reception given to this clause will affect our will to issue or not a dissident opinion.

.1110

I want to be very clear about it: it is not to be considered as co-management. Besides, we already stated it in writing, Mr. Chairman. These consultations are not a form of co-management. If unions were to use abusive practices in the workplace, the legislator and the Commisssion could still resort to section 14, paragraph 3.

Mr. Chairman, I leave it to your discretion and I need your support.

[English]

The Chair: I will call on Mr. Bevilacqua, if he could make it short, as we have already exceeded the time for debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is important that this point be discussed.

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua: I just wanted some clarification. In the proposal made by the Bloc, is there a way to enforce the obligation on the employee representative? In other words, what happens if he doesn't participate?

Mr. Dixon: There is a provision in clause 23 of the bill that makes as one of the obligations of an employer subject to a compliance audit, and subject to the issuance of directions by the commission, a failure to consult with its employees in accordance with clause 14. To the extent that if one wants to consider that this whole provision is in the nature of a consultation, it raises questions as to whether this would be enforceable.

The provision, as drafted, makes a distinction between consultation under subclause (1) and the new subclause (4), which clearly is a different obligation. Subclause (1) has the consultation requirement and says that's not a form of co-management, but then goes on to add subsection (4), which is clearly something different from what is described in subclause (1).

That has significant implications in terms of the role of employee representatives in this legislation. If the bill says that the employee representatives and the employer must jointly implement it, it implies joint decision-making and co-management.

I won't debate the merits of that; I'm just explaining what I see are the implications of the motion by the addition of subclause (4).

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It cannot mean «co-management» since it clearly says in the Act, in paragraph 3, that: «a consultation under subsection (1) is not a form of co-management.»

Do you really believe that this could be considered co-management? I don't believe so.

Let me rephrase my question: If such an amendment were agreed to, and I hope that it will be looked upon favourably by the government, to what extent could employees participate in the decision-making process, legally speaking?

We have a plan. We hope that both employers and employees are going to jointly implement it. To what extent, legally speaking, could employees be consulted and participate, if such an amendment were agreed to?

[English]

Mr. Dixon: As I said, what is covered by your proposed subclause (4) is something that's in addition to the steps described in subclause (1), which are to obtain the views of the employee representatives on certain matters. Subclause (3) says that obtaining those views is not a form of co-management. Your proposal then adds something quite separate and distinct from the consultation, this added requirement that the employer and employee representatives must implement and revise the plan jointly. That obligation would appear to give rise to a really undefined.... It suggests a much more significant role of the employees' representatives in decision-making - the actual management and implementation of the plan - which arguably would require any decision on hiring, promotion -

.1115

The Chair: You've made it clear to the chair. It is obvious this is an issue on which even the government member wants to ask information of the officials.

On a procedural basis, I've consulted with the clerk. If the group decides to stand this amendment, it means it is not defeated and it is not won. We will re-discuss this because of the length of time it is taking for the consultation. The time for debate has elapsed and I'm in a quandary if I have to invoke the time limit.

So if we can postpone the consideration -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: What does «stand» mean? It means that once we have been through all clauses, at the end, we're going to come back to clause 14.

[English]

The Chair: We will visit it as a new one, yes. It is not lost.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): That's a victory for you, Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We're going to come back to this clause at the end of our discussion. So I note «stand».

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would ask department officials to give some thought to the matter.

There is another one, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Amendment allowed to stand

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: The amendment is allowed to stand. Then there is B-6, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, B-6.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I am also very proud of this amendment because I believe it does correspond exactly with the government members. Witnesses have told us we should set up information programs for administrative staff in charge of implementing the employement equity programs, and that we should give them further details on this implementation and review process. This is very much in keeping with the wishes of the government and of the unions who came to made us aware.

I would also hope that this is someting the government is going to look upon favourably. We too define what we mean by administrative staff. I would like to know whether our witnesses think that such an addition is appropriate.

[English]

The Chair: Will the witness please respond?

Mr. Dixon: This proposal seems to be similar to new clause 13.1, which the committee just addressed, in that it also addresses the requirement to provide information to the employees. The restriction here of to whom the employer would provide that information about employment equity is limited to the administrative staff.

I just point out that the obligation that was approved under 13.1 actually goes beyond providing such information to administrative staff. It's to provide information to all the employees.

That's about all I can say about the provision.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Clause 13.1, which was approved while I was in the House fighting for the rights of francophone members of this committee was a government proposal which goes beyond what we are asking. For a moment, we could believe that we have a socialist government, Mr. Chairman. If this amendment goes beyond what I'm proposing, I shall withdraw mine. Are you a lawyer?

[English]

Mr. Dixon: Yes, I am.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, if the government requires more than I do, it's difficult not to agree. So, I shall withdraw my amendment.

.1120

[English]

The Chair: The amendment is withdrawn with the consent of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: But not the other.

[English]

Clause 14 allowed to stand

Clause 15 and 16 agreed to

On Clause 17 - Reports of private sector employers

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have an amendment to clause 17, Mr. Chairman. Are we dealing with clause 17?

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Let's start with my amendments.

I don't know what the government's point of view is on this issue, but we thought it appropriate to suggest that the employer be asked to give details on the consultations held with employees' representatives, in the reports to be submitted.

I was told that the government was going to propose an amendment along these lines. Is this still the case? I am referring to B-7, amendment C017-010.43a. I was told that the government was prepared to go beyond what I am proposing.

Does the government have an amendment? I am ready to listen to it.

[English]

Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the amendment Mr. Ménard is looking for.

The Chair: By way of explanation, by way of intent, because I cannot entertain that one when one has been entertained - By way of intent, Mr. Wood can indicate -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would be prepared to temporarily withdraw my amendment so that government members can present theirs. If it goes beyond what I am proposing, of course, we shall accept it. Would you agree that we first listen to the government's amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, indeed. On unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to proceed to the government amendment?

Some hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Wood: The number is 017-011.14a and it's moved at -

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): I'm having a little difficulty here because there is a government amendment that comes before that in this clause, which -

Mr. Bevilacqua: On electronic filing.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): Yes, which should be dealt with first.

The Chair: Yes, we have to do that first technically.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): The suggestion was made that with respect to Mr. Ménard's amendment B-7, if you wish, you could describe what the later government amendments will in fact do to see whether Mr. Ménard wishes to continue with his amendment or withdraw it. Then we can just work through them in order.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I don't think I have the government's amendment.

[English]

The Chair: What number is that?

.1125

Mr. Wood: It's 017-011.14a.

The rationale is that employers, unions and designated groups all said you can't assess an employee's performance on the numbers alone. You have to know about the measure employers are taking to remove barriers and to provide employment opportunities for designated group members.

Employers also told the committee that the employment equity numbers are just like other numbers used in business planning, only one of the tools used by employers to determine the present situation is to get targets and measure progress. It will also make public account for the obligation to consult with unions and employee representatives.

It was requested by CHRC, also the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the RCMP and la Confédération des syndicats nationaux, among others.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I agree and I am goig to withdraw my amendment since yours sounds more imperative. I agree with this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

We shall proceed.

Mr. Wood: I just wanted to thank the Bloc for their input. We appreciate it on this.

The Chair: Recorded.

Is it the intent of the government to proceed with G-13?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes. Do you want the rationale for it?

The Chair: If there are any questions from the group.

Mr. Bevilacqua: This is a technical amendment to lessen the administrative burden on both governments and employers in the monitoring of compliance with the legislation. Reporting can be done electronically. Electronic report analysis is facilitated.

The minister has for several years now provided software free to help employers capture and maintain the data needed under EEA and to generate the annual statistical reports to be submitted to the minister.

Therefore, it is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Are there any further amendments?

Mr. Wood: Yes, there is. There's a motion to amend, 017-011.30a.

I move the French version of clause 7 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 30 on page 11 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

ter pour une période d'au plus un an un employeur de

[English]

Mr. Wood: Clause 17, page 11.

The Clerk: We haven't voted on G-14. He withdrew B-7 and now we're working our way through. We've arrived at G-14.

Mr. Bevilacqua: On G-14. Can we deal with that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Wood: That clause 17 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 11 and substituting the following:

(5) An employer shall include in a report a

I think we've already given the rationale.

The Chair: Is there debate on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Are we on G-15, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No, on G-14.

Mr. Ménard: This amendment has been agreed to.

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemarre): We haven't voted on this amendment.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Any other amendment?

Mr. Wood: Yes, I believe we do.

I move that the French version of clause 17 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 30 on page 11 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

ter pour une période d'au plus un an un employeur de

[English]

The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Wait! I want to be very clear on that. What does the amendment change?

.1130

[English]

Mr. Wood: It's a technical amendment necessary for consistency with the English version. I think the French version presently refers to a period of one year, while the English version says ``a period not exceeding one year''.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Are we talking about paragraph 17(1)c)?

c) the salary ranges of its employees and the degree of representation of persons who are members of designated groups in -

This does not match. Are we talking about paragraph c)?

[English]

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Are there any further amendments?

Mr. Wood: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. We have 017-011.41a. I move that clause 17 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 41 on page 11 and substituting the following:

(8) An employer shall, on filing a report with the Minister under this section, provide its employees' representative with a copy of the report.

(9) The Minister shall, on receipt of a re-

This motion, as you know, is being proposed as a concession to the Bloc, which has proposed a similar motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Would Mr. Wood be kind enough to give me an answer? Which clause are you talking about, Mr. Wood?

[English]

The Chair: It's a statement of generosity.

Mr. Wood: I move that clause 17 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 41 on page 11 and substituting the following:

(8) An employer shall, on filing a report with the Minister under this section, provide its employees' representatives with a copy of the report.

(9) The Minister shall, on receipt of a re-

As I said, Mr. Chairman, this motion is being proposed as a concession to the Bloc, which has proposed a similar motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this is a motion which is very dear to my heart because I feel it is important that employees can have access to this information. I thank the government for agreeing to this amendment.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Shall clause 17 as amended carry?

Clause 17 as amended agreed to

Clause 18 agreed to

On clause 19 - Consolidation to be tabled

Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. I move that -

The Chair: Just a second, please. The clerk is telling me that the sequence - from the Bloc, B-8, as submitted -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think the amendment, as it is presently worded, is a wrong interpretation by our legal counsels, of what we wished this amendment to say. I have discussed the matter with the legislative counsel, Mr. Ducharme, and I cannot propose this amendment as is. It has to be withdrawn.

.1135

[English]

Mr. Loney: I move amendment 020-012.14a, to amend the English version of clause 19 of Bill C-64 by striking out lines 14 and 15 on page 12 and substituting the following:

cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifteenth sitting day of that date

The rationale, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a minor technical amendment to make the English version consistent with the French.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 19 as amended agreed to

Ms Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we could help the proceedings of the committee substantially right now if we could break for a couple of minutes for a consultation.

The Chair: Does the committee agree to break for a couple of minutes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

.1137

.1145

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We shall now go to clause 20.

On clause 20 - Report of Treasury Board

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with our amendments to clause 20. I do not wish that they be discussed at this stage. The Bloc Québécois had introduced three amendments regarding clause 20 and I do not wish that they be discussed just now.

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua: Oh, you just want to withdraw.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I want them to be discussed in the House with committee of the Whole. I do not wish that anything which has to do with clause 20 be discussed at this stage; I do not wish these amendments to stand, but I'm hoping that they be discussed in the House with committee of the Whole, at the report stage. Is that clear, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, it's very clear. Shall clause 20 carry any amendments? Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chair. I move that we amend clause 20 by striking out lines 25 to 47 on page 12 and lines 1 to 19 on page 13 and substituting the following -

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, shall we dispense reading the amendment G-18?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would like, at least, some general clarifications before we adopt it. I understand you are talking about G-18 and that it's a three page amendment.

[English]

The Chair: G-18.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It amends clause 20.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: The amendment will clarify the contents of the report of the Treasury Board and clarify consequential changes to reporting requirements for all other portions of the public sector except for CSIS. With respect to CSIS, it provides for special reporting requirements. These amendments will delete the former set of requirements and replace them with a new set. The rationale in general is that the amendments are designed to ensure that the public sector reports are as similar as practicable to private sector employer reports.

The amendments are also designed to provide some protection and flexibility to CSIS when it reports to Parliament. Finally, the amendments are designed to clarify the requirements on TB and separate employers to provide detailed information for each designated group with respect to occupational category, hiring, promotions and terminations. This requirement is not needed for the private sector because it is already in the regulations.

Certain changes of the clause are also necessitated to ensure consistency with the proposed amendments relating to coverage of the public sector in amended paragraphs 4(1)(c) and (d), and paragraphs 20(2) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e); to make clear that the information reported by Treasury Board on designated groups must be compiled for each designated group separately; to add the requirement that Treasury Board would report on the quality of measures undertaken within the reporting year, and it's a parallel to the requirement in the private sector; to add the requirement to include information on the consultations between the employer and the bargaining agent in a way parallel to the private sector; to enable the Treasury Board report to contain other information desired by the President of the Treasury Board.

With respect to clauses 23 and 24 - to set out the reporting procedures and requirements for all other public sector employers, except for CSIS, who will submit their reports to Treasury Board; to replicate the Treasury Board's reporting requirements for these separate employers so these reports will contain comparable data and information; to ensure that the reporting requirements for CSIS may differ from those of the rest of the public sector.

Referring specifically to subclauses 20(5) and (6) - to ensure that CSIS will provide a report to Treasury Board, but in an amended way so as to protect the release of specific information. No exact number of employees will be released. Essential information for employment equity purposes is included; for instance, the percentage of designated groups in a total organization by occupational group, by salary range, and percentage of those hired, promoted, or terminated.

.1150

It will also include analytical and other information in the report as required for all other portions of the public sector and private sector employees. These were requested by CSIS.

Referring to new subclause 20(7), Treasury Board is to send a copy of its report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

New subclause 20(8) - public sector employees are to send a copy of the report to the employees' representatives. This a concession to you, similar to your amendment, I believe. There is a corresponding - also made to the private sector.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I understand that all the amendments which are now proposed modify only clause 20, Mr. Chairman. I know that the government wants to be clearer and not refer to the designated group in general, but to each of the designated groups recognized in the legislation. It seems to me this is the intent of the amendment, if I got it right.

The Chairman: That's it.

Mr. Ménard: We agree, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 20 as amended agreed to

The Chair: There is a proposal for new clause 20.1, through amendment B-11.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Are you on clause 20.1, Mr. Chairman?

I thought I had indicated that I did not wish to have anything that has to do with clause 20 discussed at this time, but that we wanted to postpone this discussion until the report stage.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

On clause 21 - Compliance audits

Mr. Maloney: I have an amendment. I move to amend clause 21 by striking out line 22 on page 13 and substituting the following:

on employers by sections 5, 9 to 14, 16 and 20.1.

The Chair: I just want to be very clear here. Mr. Ménard has submitted B-12. Are you reporting it at a later stage, too?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: B-12. Legislative counsels told me that it was a consequential amendment. We cannot discuss it if we don't know what is going to happen in the case of clause 20.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, proceed.

Mr. Maloney: This amendment deals with delegation by the commission. The commission may authorize any officer or employee of the commission that the commission considers appropriate to exercise any power and perform any duty or function of the commission under this act. Any power so exercised and any duty or function so performed shall be deemed to have been exercised or performed by the commission.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I want to understand exactly what we are talking about. Why are we adding this delegation of power at this stage?

[English]

Mr. Maloney: It's a provision of the commission to delegate any function to an appropriate officer or employee. The specific intention is that the power to issue direction under clause 23 could be delegated. This would mean it would not be necessary to convene the entire commission in a routine matter such as issuing a direction to an employer found to be in non-compliance. The amendment adds authority to delegate generally, as appropriate, in doing its work.

Again, the amendment is to permit the enforcement agency to match human resources selectively to tasks. The amendment was really requested by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Are we talking about compliance officers? We are not talking about the people who are going to sit on the tribunals. We are talking about the people who are going to work in the field, the compliance officers.

.1155

[English]

Mr. Maloney: Yes, the compliance officers.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Could we have the witnesses' opinion?

[English]

Mr. Dixon: This particular amendment is actually linked to some further amendments that will modify the role of the compliance officers. Under the current bill, compliance officers do the audit of employers and subsequently are in a position to issue directions to the employer if they find non-compliance.

Later amendments will change the role. The compliance officer will not be responsible for issuing directions. They have elevated the decision-making for those kinds of second-level decisions, which means issuing directions to employers to do certain things or to request that matters should be referred to a tribunal.

At the same time, while the commission wishes that these subsequent decisions, following an audit, be elevated to the level of the commission, the commission requested that not every decision it will be required to make under these future amendments we have yet to get to would be made by the full commission.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a body of I don't know how many representatives. Rather than having to convene a full meeting of every member of the commission to issue a direction to the employer, they wish to have the authority to delegate that to perhaps some senior official within the commission. This person would not be the compliance officer who did the original audit, but some other officer or official at a senior level within the commission.

This authority for delegation will give the commission the power to delegate certain of the decisions that future amendments will give to it under this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: If I understand correctly the meaning of the amendment, the compliance officers will be in a position to issue orders or directions to employers. In order to do that, the full commission would have to issue these directions and the amendment would somehow create a senior level between the officer and the commission itself to issue these directions.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: Under the current bill, both the audit and the determination of non-compliance are made by the compliance officer. The bill, as it is now, then says that the compliance officer can issue a direction to the employer.

There is an amendment on the list of government amendments that will change that situation. Again, at the request of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they wish to have the important decision of issuing directions elevated to a more senior level, which is at the level of the commission.

They didn't want the compliance officer to be issuing directions. The compliance officer would make the initial finding and then report the matter to the commission, which would then decide what appropriate action to take.

The commission recognized, however, that although this second-level issuance of directions decision should be done at a more senior level within the commission, they didn't want to have, in every case, the full commission having to convene to make that decision; they wanted to be able to delegate it to somebody else, such as a senior officer within the commission. This gives the commission the power to delegate that.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have no objection to our adopting this but just for my own understanding, could you show us the link with the other amendment which is consequential to this one? I would like to have a look at it to understand what we are voting on.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: There is government motion 023-015.36a.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Does the clerk know the number?

.1200

[English]

The Chair: What is the docket number at the top of the page, please?

Mr. Dixon: I'm searching for it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We could read this together and better understand the whole mechnism. All this seems very logical to me but I just want to understand.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: G-24 is one. Also, there's G-25.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We could say it is a form of decentralization.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: Well, it simply gives the commission more flexibility in those decisions that are to be given to it under future amendments. The commission wants the flexibility to be able to delegate that decision-making authority that future amendments will give to the commission itself, as opposed to a compliance officer.

The bill, as it is now, gives specific responsibilities to designated compliance officers. The commission has said that of some of those decisions that have been provided for compliance officers to exercise, it wants the commission itself to be able to decide. So there are future amendments that in effect take away the power to issue directions from the compliance officer and give that power to the commission.

At the same time, the commission has said that although this will now be officially a commission decision to issue a decision, we want to be able to delegate that to some senior official in the commission rather than needing every single member of the commission gathered together around the table to make that decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I understand. Thank you for your explanations.

This shows us that it is always useful to be a lawyer. I agree, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 21 as amended agreed to

Clause 22 agreed to

The Chair: I now see a new clause proposal from the government side, G-20.

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that Bill C-64 be amended by adding, immediately after line 47 on page 14, the following:

22.1 Every compliance officer or any other person acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Commission who receives or obtains information relating to a compliance audit under this Act shall, with respect to access to and use of that information by that compliance officer or person, satisfy any security requirements applicable to, and take any oath of secrecy required to be taken by, persons who normally have access to and use of that information.

The rationale behind this is that it ensures compliance officers of the CHRC have the appropriate security clearance to conduct audits of secure organizations.

Amendment agreed to

.1205

Mr. Grose (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused here, because I seem to have included with clause 23 that amendment that was just done on clause 22, so there must be some mistake somewhere.

The Chair: That's all right.

On clause 23 - Employer undertaking

The Chair: Ms Catterall.

[Translation]

Ms Catterall: I move that the French versio of clause 23 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 15 and subsituting the following:

a) n'a pas recueilli les renseignements ou procédé aux analyses ou études visés aux alinéas 9(1)a) et b);

[English]

Mr. Chair, this is a technical amendment to make it consistent with the English version and with the amended French version from subclause 9(1). The amendment is needed to ensure that there is a sanction for the employer's duty to collect workforce data.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Are there any further amendments?

Mr. Dromisky: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's another one. This is 023-015.12A. I moved that the English version of clause 23 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 15 and substituting the following:

(d) has not made all reasonable efforts to im-

It really is a small technical amendment we're making here, Mr. Chairman, needed for consistency with the French version and with the amended wording of clause 12.

Amendment agreed to

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have a consequential amendment which we cannot deal with until we know what's going to happen with clause 14. So, when we deal with clause 14, we'll have to remember that there is a consequential amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Are you saying that amendment B-13 stand for further consideration later?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is a consequential amendment. So we cannot adopt it without knowing what will happen with my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: The amendment of the Bloc is to stand until we go to the other amendment. Agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, the clerk has just advised me that B-13 and G-23 cover the same areas. If G-23 were to be considered now, although we have agreed to stand the Bloc amendment of B-13, it would make the decision incapable of being effective because G-23 addresses the same lines.

.1210

We can either stand amendment G-23 or, with the consent of the Bloc, we can proceed to consider amendment G-23. Mr. Ménard, can we proceed to consider amendment G-23?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You're saying that amendment G-23 stands because of the Bloc which means that if we were to adopt G-23 now the Bloc's amendment could not possibly be passed.

[English]

The Chair: Would you like to hear the intent of the government for amendment G-23 - just the intent, it's not a motion yet - so it may guide you?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: All right!

[English]

The Chair: Would someone from the government side give the intent of amendment G-23, please.

Ms Catterall: I can. Amendment G-23 creates the requirement for the employer to provide information to employees about certain matters related to employment equity. That was clause 13. This provision now makes that requirement enforceable. Failure to provide the required information to employees is added to the list of situations constituting non-compliant behaviour, which may then be the subject of a direction by the commission.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I want to make sure everything is quite clear. I have no objection to the adoption of G-23 but I want to be certain that it will not in any way, interfere with the possible adoption of section 14 as the Bloc wishes it to read. That's my only reservation at this stage.

[English]

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): The committee could make an order now by unanimous consent that they would, when it became necessary, re-open those lines and consider again the amendment of the Bloc.

The Chair: Do I get unanimous consent?

Mr. Wood: We didn't hear the ruling.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): It would be unanimous consent to approve the current amendment, but to agree to re-open those lines by consent when we come to consider the Bloc's amendments at the end.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes.

Ms Catterall: Is that the better procedure, or is it the better procedure to table it? Frankly, I'm concerned that there may be people at the table at a later date who would not agree to unanimous consent.

The Chair: The unanimous consent will be given now.

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): You could either stand them, as you say, or you could make an order of the committee now, by unanimous consent, that the lines would be re-opened at the time when the other amendments were considered.

Mr. Bevilacqua: Good, that makes sense.

The Chair: So the order is made right now.

Ms Catterall: Is that acceptable to Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, I agree.

[English]

The Chair: On that note, the order is given and recorded. We will now go back to amendment G-23. Ms Catterall, could you move the amendment G-23 formally.

Ms Catterall: I so move. Dispense with the reading, and I've already explained.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: On amendment G-24, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Wood: We have a motion to amend, 024-016.14b. We move that Bill C-64 be amended by adding, immediately after line 14 on page 16 the following -

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): Excuse me, it's 023-015.36a, amendment G-24 in the package I distributed.

Mr. Wood: Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr. Maloney: This deals with the commission, of the compliance officer issuing a direction.

The Chair: Yes.

.1215

Mr. Maloney: I move that clause 23 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 36 on page 15 and substituting the following....

The Chair: Can we dispense?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Maloney: Perhaps I could offer an explanation of the reasoning for the amendment.

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Maloney: The change was requested by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission believes it may be inappropriate for a compliance officer to issue directions to an employer in certain situations.

For example, where a very large employer, such as CN, is being audited, it may be more appropriate for the direction to be issued by the commission itself to the president of such a corporation. This also would provide a check on any direction that is issued. In general it may be more appropriate for a senior-level person to oversee the issuing of directions.

By this amendment, the compliance officer notifies the commission of the non-compliance and the commission itself issues the direction. For the corresponding delegation of power, new subclause 21.(5) allows the commission to delegate this power back to the compliance officer if it so wishes, or to any appropriate person, for example at the director-general level.

Corresponding changes are made throughout the bill wherever reference is made to a direction issued by the compliance officer to change it to the commission.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Is there any further debate?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 23 allowed to stand

The Chair: G-23 was adopted with the proviso that we have an order to revisit B-13 of the Bloc.

Mr. Wood: Is this about subclause 23.(1)?

The Chair: Yes.

Now we proceed to G-25.

The Clerk: This is indicated as new clause 23.1. G-25 is the number in the package I gave to the members, but it's actually what will become clause 23.1 if it's adopted.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Is it G-24 or G-25?

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): It is G-25.

[English]

Mr. Wood: It's new clause 23.1. It's moved that Bill C-64 be amended by adding immediately after line 14 on page 16 the following....

Shall I dispense?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the motion?

Is there any need for clarification, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It's all right. I understand.

[English]

The Chair: Good.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 24 - Employer's request for review

Mr. Wood: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's 024-016.17a.

It's moved that clause 24 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 17 to 19 on page 16 and substituting the following....

I'll dispense.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the motion?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We will break for five minutes.

.1219

.1225

The Chair: Has G-27 been proposed yet?

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): No.

Mr. Ménard: Oui.

Mr. Maloney: We're dealing with clause 24?

The Chair: Clause 24, G-27.

Mr. Maloney: I have an amendment there. It is referring to clause 24 on page 16. I would like to move that the English version of clause 24, Bill C-64, be amended by striking out line 22 on page 16 and substituting the following:

direction issued by the Commission, the

The Chair: Any debate, or any need for amendment? Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, it's alright.

[English]

Clause 24 as amended agreed to

On clause 25 - Establishment of Tribunals

The Chair: Shall clause 25 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No, I have two amendments, Mr. Chairman. There are several amendments in the package and I want to mention it.

The amendment I want to propose, because there were several possibilities, is number C025-016.35a. The clerk is goig to distribute it. I believe this amendment will please the government, something I always try to achieve, whenever possible.

Mr. Chairman, the objective of the amendment is to give due consideration to the numerous testimonies we have heard. Members of the committee will recall that we chose, in our report, to recommend that a specific tribunal be establish to hear employment equity matters. We unanimously adopted that recommendation and the tribunal was to consist of three members, but with no right to appeal. We would like to see on this tribunal a person representing the bargaining agents and who wouldn't be paid.

One member would be chosen by the bargaining agent and another by the employer. This explains subparagraph (2.1). Under subparagraph (2.2), as according to the bill only one member of the tribunal would be paid. We propose to still keep representatives for the employer and the bargaining agents, but only one person would be paid.

Mr. Chairman, this issue of consultation, transparency, was mentioned very often during the testimonies and I should think that the government would want to look favourably upon this amendment. I think you should adopt this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Any debate?

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, the concern I think we have here is that three-member tribunals are costly. The president of the panel is responsible for naming members of a tribunal and if the bargaining agents were authorized to nominate their representative, employers would also want representation. This model is suited to labour relations such as an arbitration, but where equity matters need to ensure knowledge of all aspects of equity.

The proposal as submitted sets up a tribunal with expertise. The government proposal sets up a tribunal with expertise in employment equity and human resource management. The model government proposal is not based on competing interests, it is based on effective problem-solving. A fiscally responsible government considers the cost is justified only when the issue before the tribunal is complex or precedent-setting.

Mr. Ménard: Would you like to read it one more time, more slowly? It's not easy for us.

Mr. Maloney: Should I repeat that, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Ménard: I know you are very patient. You like this amendment. You want to move it?

Mr. Maloney: I want to rebut it, Mr. Ménard. I'm suggesting we don't accept it, Mr. Ménard. Three-member tribunals are expensive. The president of the panel -

Mr. Ménard: Only one will be paid.

Mr. Maloney: Only one will be paid?

Mr. Ménard: Yes.

.1230

Mr. Maloney: The president of the panel is responsible for naming members to the tribunal. If the bargaining agents were to authorize or nominate their representative, employers would also want representation.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: They have it in (2.1):

...whose employees are represented by a bargaining agent shall consist of three members one of whom shall be chosen by the bargaining agent and one by the employer.

Employers and bargaining agents are represented.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: We're going to propose an amendment requiring expertise in employment equity on the tribunal and human resource management. Our proposal, which will come, is not based on competing labour interests, it's based on effective problem-solving.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, may I remind our colleague, who has followed our work closely, that, as a committee we had made a unanimous recommendation - I believe even the Reform Party was in agreement, which is noteworthy - that the members of the Employment Equity Tribunal, whether it is to be made up of one member or three members, be employment equity experts. The proposal adds nothing new and in fact we are proposing it ourselves. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman? You may even have suggested it yourself. This will be in the recommendations in our report. We aren't adding anything.

The amendment suggests that one of the three people should represent the employer and one should represent employees. However, in light of the financial constraints the government faces, which we are mindful of, only one of those persons would be paid. Mr. Chairman, you will remember that this is a recommendation that was made repeatedly by witnesses. I think this is cooperation at its best, its most noble, its most edifying - and its most effective. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is delighted with the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, the problem is we're going to arbitration with labour... The model you are proposing is similar to arbitration and it's not a labour issue, it's an employment equity issue. The composition of this tribunal should reflect expertise in employment equity matters. What's going to happen is the bargaining agent is going to appoint the union steward or union rep -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: But what about the employers? Are you concerned because you think it is not possible for management or unions to identify experts in employment equity matters? Mr. Chairman, what exactly is our colleague's concern? You are correct when you say that the model is similar to arbitration. There would be three people, one representing the Commission, one representing employers and one representing employees, but only one person would be paid. This seems like sheer common sense to me. Perhaps we could ask the officials for their advice, or perhaps we shouldn't, since I don't think they are very much in favour of this.

[English]

The Chair: I think it will be inappropriate, because it really goes to a policy decision, in the sense of whether it ought to be policy or not. But I will allow the witness to respond in the way he deems.

Mr. Dickson: I would just like to make clear to Mr. Ménard that the employment equity review panels, under the bill, will be selected from an existing roster of panel members. It's the Human Rights Tribunal Panel. There is a panel established under the Canadian Human Rights Act. There's an existing roster of individuals, appointed by the Governor in Council, who compose the Human Rights Tribunal Panel. Under the bill, a request is made to the president of the panel and he appoints from the roster that has been established under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I would just make the observation that we are talking about an existing Human Rights Tribunal Panel from which these members would be selected and that what's contemplated is that the president of the panel would select the members and that's the way it is now. The proposal, which calls for someone other than the president to appoint, I suspect may have some implications in terms of the ability of the president to manage the operations of the panel properly -

.1235

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: When Maxwell Yalden testified before the committee he explained that the members now appointed by the Commission are part time commissioners who don't necessarily have expertise in employment equity matters, since the Tribunal does not exist yet, but they do have expertise in human rights matters. But you are right when you say that those persons are appointed on the recommendation of the Governor in Council.

Now, the witnesses hoped that we would make sure that the members to be appointed have expertise in employment equity matters and secondly they wanted both parties to be represented. Knowing how the Commission operates, do you believe that the objectives of that amendment will be met? If that is the case, I can withdraw it. But you do understand the idea. The idea is that the employment equity cases to be heard will be heard by people who are familiar with these matters and who can be responsive both to the management side and the union side.

[English]

Mr. Dixon: I guess all I can say in response is that because there is an existing roster appointed by the Governor in Council, it's really up to the president of the panel to select from those members.

There is another government motion further on that I believe attempts to address your concern. I refer you to government motion G-28. It may or may not address your concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard:

(3) The President of the Panel shall, in appointing members of the Tribunal, take into consideration their knowledge and experience in employment equity matters.

That's interesting, and the next amendment I'm going to submit goes a bit farther, while respecting that idea. You understand that if that amendment were passed, we would have no guarantee that both management and unions would be represented on the Tribunal. That is the intent of the amendment. I understand that the government's side has certain reservations. As the government is willing to make concessions where amendments 10 and 14 are concerned, I should also make some. I am by nature inclined to be conciliatory and I will accept the result of the vote. If we put the amendment to a vote, I will accept the result, but I would like the next amendment to be passed.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would like a recorded vote on that amendment, to have it on the record. I want the CSN and the FTQ to know that I voted in favour of it.

The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote.

[English]

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have another one, Mr. Chairman, and I would really like this one to be accepted. It would create sub-paragraph (3.1). In this way, we would very clearly enshrine the principle in the act that the members who would sit on the employment equity Tribunal would insofar as possible be members of designated groups and would thus reflect the make up of the Canadian population.

.1240

This is what several witnesses requested from us. Those commissioners must of course, when they are appointed, have expertise in employment equity matters. The amendment has no cost impact. It has no effect on the eventual tribunal, but it does seek to expressly state some of the principles we adopted unanimously when we were duscussing our report.

I think the government should in fact welcome it enthusiastically. I am referring to amendment C025.016.36a.

(3.1) Where the president of the panel appoints one or more persons as members of a tribunal, the president shall make reasonable efforts to appoint persons.

a) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole; and

b) who, in the opinion of the president, are highly knowledgeable about employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, the clerk advised me we first have to consider G-28 before proceeding to consideration of your motion, with your permission.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, agreed.

[English]

The Chair: We can hold it in abeyance, and we will proceed to amendment G-28 on the government side.

Mr. Maloney: There's an amendment on clause 25.

The Chair: G-28.

Mr. Maloney: Yes, but it says, ``clause 25, page 16'' is G-28.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Maloney: Okay. The amendment there, which I had -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we must understand that if G-28 were to pass, we could not pass my amendment. I propose that we deal with my amendment first.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk has advised me we can consider your amendment after G, but let me have a clarification.

[Translation]

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): There is no overlap.

Mr. Ménard: Yes there is, because we cannot pass an amendment stating that the president of the commission will appoint people in light of their experience, and also have (3.1)a). It really has to be one or the other, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Let me ask the advice of the clerk.

Mr. Philippe Ducharme (Legal Counsel): There's no problem in terms of lands, but in terms of substance, if G-28 passes, then Mr. Ménard's amendment says substantially the same. There would be no purpose to adopting B-16.1.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): B-16.1 has a further condition.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We should pass my amendment.

[English]

Mr. Ducharme: The substance in (b) of Mr. Ménard's amendment is quite similar to the government's amendment. What would you go with if G-28 passes? There's going to be redundancy.

The Chair: The chair is disposed to agree with the legislative counsel.

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ménard's amendment amplifies.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Maloney: In order for G-28 to proceed, because they are very similar, but B-16.1 expands upon G-28, it makes sense to follow -

The Chair: Is it the intention of the government to support B-16.1? Is it able to say it now?

Mr. Maloney: I have some concerns about 3.1(a).

The Chair: I see.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): This one actually starts a line or two earlier, but because they cover essentially the same question in the clause, they should be debated together and voted on separately at the end.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: (Inaudible)

[English]

The Chair: The suggestion of the clerk is we debate them both together, then we will take the vote on G-28 and B-16. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to understand. This amendment confirms the principles which were repeatedly recommended to us by the witnesses. Can someone explain the government's hesitation, since the amendment would not be making fondamental changes to the substance of the bill? It does not even modify the tribunal. We are talking about the principles that will guide the appointment of members.

.1245

I believe that the government must show its generosity and accept amendments which may be secondary but are important in principle. Otherwise, my friendship will be affected.

[English]

Ms Catterall: I don't have a problem with what the member is trying to accomplish, that in appointing panels the president should make reasonable efforts to consider having designated groups who also have expertise represented on the panels. We're not saying they should choose one or the other. That would in fact require anybody who makes appointments to consider both those factors in making appointments to the panel.

What I do have a problem with is that our amendment, on the other hand, deals only with their knowledge and experience in employment equity matters. I'm inclined to think it's possible to combine both those concepts. I don't think we can do it in the amendment Mr. Ménard has put forward, because it says the president will make reasonable efforts to appoint persons.

One, you have four designated groups. You couldn't appoint four of them to the three-member panel. Two, you have the requirement that they also be highly knowledgeable about employment equity. One presumes the panel is going to have both characteristics represented on it.

I wonder if we could in fact stand this amendment and see if we could do a blending of the two, something along the lines of ``The President shall take into consideration''. It's more the wording that's in our amendment, but it incorporates both the designated groups and the employment equity.

I propose that we stand this until we can consult with the minister, perhaps, and maybe between the two of us -

The Chair: And the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Just a clarification, Mr. Chairman. My colleague should understand that we do not believe that, with this amendment, every time a pannel has to be established, there should be representatives of each of the four designated groups. If such had been the mover's intent, we would have said so explicitely.

We're saying that in choosing the members of this pannel, the commission should take the designated groups into consideration. This could be one person out of three. It is left to the commission's discretion. I believe that our colleague's argument is inadmissible in substance and away from the point. So, I'm not sure we should stand it.

I believe that the governement through one of it's most committed employment equity activists, was in agreement with the principles which are expressed here. I believe the government should recommend the adoption of this amendment, since you understood that we are not saying there should be for each pannel four people representing each of the designated categories, but only representatives of one or the other of the designated categories.

[English]

The Chair: The way I heard Ms Catterall, I can sense a meeting of the minds. It may just be a matter of wording, just to have the time to ensure -

Ms Catterall: A possible meeting of the minds.

The Chair: There is a suggestion to have both amendments stood. Is that right?

Ms Catterall: Just give us a little time for discussion. I'm uncomfortable with:

shall make reasonable efforts to appoint

I think that's too restrictive.

The Chair: We can stand it. We can then go back to it.

Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It means that if we stand the two amendments, we can come back at the end of the process. I remind you that we have to adjourn at one o'clock.

[English]

The Chair: I'll come back to that. That's the chair's commitment to you.

Amendments G-28 and B-16.1 allowed to stand

The Chair: We now go to consideration of amendment G-29.

.1250

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Catterall: We have an amendment, G-29, that clause 25 be amended by adding....

Do I need to read it all?

The Chair: Dispense?

Dispense.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I understand that it is quite close to an amendment we have adopted earlier on the confidentiality of information.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Yes, it's simply to ensure it, because we will be auditing organizations such as CSIS, CSE, RCMP, the Canadian forces. Staff and members of the tribunal should have the appropriate security clearance to conduct audits of secure organizations. For instance, we wouldn't necessarily want to reveal the number and location of CSIS employees.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You have already adopted an amendment that is quite similar, if I'm not mistaken.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: But that dealt with the compliance officer.

Ms Catterall: That's right. This deals with tribunal panel members.

Mr. Maloney: Their members and their staff.

Mr. Ménard: I agree with

[Inaudible - Transeditor]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Shall clause 25 stand?

Clause 25 then shall stand because of the commitment to revisit those two.

On clause 26-Powers of Tribunal

The Chair: Shall clause 26 carry?

Mr. Maloney: I refer you to the amendment under clause 26.

Ms Catterall: Roll your shirtsleeves up here.

Mr. Maloney: That is 026-018.01a. The motion would be that clause 26 of Bill C-64 be amended.

Do you want to dispense, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Dispense?

An hon. member: Dispense.

The Chair: Dispense. Any need for explanation?

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I just want to understand the reason for each amendment.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: Well, the hearings are to be held in public, normally -

An hon. member: Oh, yes?

Mr. Maloney: - and maybe held in camera upon application of the employer.

An hon. member: Oh, Jeez.

Mr. Ménard: Microphone, please. Would you like to speak?

Mr. Maloney: The tribunal hearings are normally held in public. They may be held in camera upon the application of the employer. The reason for the tribunal decision must be publicly available, including reasons for holding hearings in camera.

The rationale for this adds a provision that hearings are to be conducted in a public manner and establish a presumption in favour of openness. The employer may, however, convince the tribunal that it should hold a hearing in camera for special reasons.

It is clear that in camera hearings are not the norm, however. Openness and transparency in tribunal hearings will add credibility and allay fears. I refer you to subclause 26.(4), which now requires the employment equity review tribunal to make available to the parties written reasons for its decisions but makes no mention of whether or not these will be available to the public. By making all tribunals available to the public upon request, this will again reassure members of the public that justice is being done and nothing is being hidden from view.

Making publicly available the tribunal's reasons for holding hearings in camera will ensure that abuse does not occur and should allay any unfounded fears and suspicions.

That's basically the rationale, Mr. Chairman.

Do you understand, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, thank you.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, could we stop here and come back after? I have a guest from Montreal and I am supposed to meet him at one o'clock. I have to go and we had decided to interrupt our work anyway. We could come back, if the Chair wishes to, after question period.

[English]

The Chair: I'd just like to confer with the Bloc.

.1255

I'll call the vote on this one first and then I will deal with your thing.

Clause 26 as amended agreed to

The Chair: Mr. Ménard would like to suspend the meeting at this time until after Question Period, because of an appointment. He had the notice of the day before of only up to 1 o'clock. So I guess he's seeking that we suspend the mending and then resume at 3:15, after QP, to sit until the clause-by-clause is finished.

Is that the consensus of the group?

Mr. Maloney: Couldn't we just adjourn for an hour so he can have his appointment?

Mr. Bevilacqua: You have the appointment between 1 and 2 p.m. Do you have to go to Question Period? Are you in Question Period?

[Translation]

Mr. Maloney: Do you have a question?

Mr. Ménard: No, I have an appointment with someone from Montreal. I have a very good question for the Minister of Justice.

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I can ask the question for you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think we can finish today.

[English]

The Chair: So we will suspend the meeting and then meet at 3:15 p.m. to proceed with clause-by-clause until we have concluded consideration of the bill.

Thank you.

AFTERNOON SITTING

.1525

[English]

The Chair: The meeting of the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-64, clause-by-clause. We shall start with clause 27.

On clause 27 - Decision of Tribunal.

The Chair: I understand the government has an amendment. Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: I have a motion that the English version of clause 27 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 13 on page 18 and substituting the following, simply:

Commission's direction; and

Amendment agreed to

Clause 27 as amended agreed to

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to

On clause 30 - Limitation

The Chair: I can see amendments on clause 30.

Mr. Maloney: I have three amendments, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Proceed, Mr. Maloney, in the sequence of G-32 first; 018.40a.

Mr. Maloney: Yes, that's the first one I'm referring to.

Mr. Wood: Which one? What's the number?

Mr. Maloney: Amendment 030-018.40a. This motion moved that clause 30 of Bill C-64 be amended -

The Chair: Shall we dispense? Any need for explanation or debate? Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Maloney: This is necessary for consistency again when I was referring to clause 23, where it commissions compliance officers to issue directions.

The Chair: Okay. Shall the amendment carry?

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: The next amendment is G-32.5. It is a new one there?

Mr. Maloney: I have 30.0l9.098. This is a motion that the English version of clause 30 of bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 9 on page 19 and substituting the following:

selections according to merit, or impose

The current line reads: selection according to merit or to impose.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Amendment G-33.

Mr. Maloney: Amendment 030-019.012a.

The Chair: Please proceed, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Moved that clause 30 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 19 and substituting the following:

exclusion orders or regulations;

.1530

The Chair: Is there any explanation or debate?

Mr. Maloney: This is a small technical amendment consisting of only a word being changed, made at the request of the Public Service Commission. The correct terminology replaces the existing wording. The existing reference to ``exclusionary orders'' is incorrect and does not accord with the technical wording of the Public Service Employment Act.

The Chair: Is there any debate?

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Is there another amendment?

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, we have 030-019.34a. This is an amendment that clause 30 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 19 and substituting the following:

(b) a portion of the public sector referred to in paragraph 4.(1)(c) or (d) under any

Again, the rationale is it's not substantive. It's necessary for consistency with amendment to subclause 4.(1). As amended, paragraph 4.(1)(c) extends the coverage of the bill immediately to most separate public-sector organizations such as CSIS, while paragraph 4.(1)(d) leaves the RCMP and the Canadian forces to await designation by Order in Council.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 30 as amended agreed to

Clauses 31 to 37 inclusive agreed to

On clause 38 - Regulations

The Chair: I can see amendments here.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Since we have not adopted the definition of "employees", I believe the amendment falls through. It was linked to the definition we had proposed for "employees", and that definition was not adopted. Therefore, the amendment falls through.

[English]

The Chair: That's right, yes. So it's not proposed.

The government amendment G-35 is next.

Mr. Wood: Our amendment is that the French version of clause 38 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 24 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

c) régir la cueillette des renseignements, ainsi que le processus des études et analyses, visés au paragraphe 9(1);

[English]

The Chair: Is there any explanation or debate on the amendment?

Mr. Wood: It's a minor technical amendment for consistency with the English version and with the wording of 9(1).

Amendment agreed to

.1535

The Chair: Are there any other amendments?

Mr. Dromisky: Yes, there's another one, Mr. Chairman, amendment G-36. I move to amend clause 38 of Bill C-64 by striking out line 25 on page 24 and substituting the following:

without prior consultation with the Treasury

The Chair: Is there any explanation or debate on the amendment?

Mr. Dromisky: Currently clause 38 requires the Treasury Board's authorization for any regulations made. However, this amendment clarifies that any regulations affecting the Treasury Board must be made only after consultation. It also clarifies that Human Resources Development has the lead for regulations.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: We are on amendment G-37.

Mr. Maloney: I move to amend clause 38 of Bill C-64 by striking out lines 33 to 47 on page 24 and lines 1 to 10 on page 25 and substituting the following....

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Maloney: This is a wording change to accommodate an earlier change made to clause 4. It removes special reference to CSE, at the request of that organization. The Governor in Council may make any regulations considered necessary to adopt any provision of the proposed act or regulations to accommodate those portions of the public sector referred to in subparagraphs 38.(5)(a) and (b), dealing with the RCMP and Canadian forces and CSIS. The amendment further clarifies that such regulations will be made on the recommendation of the Treasury Board only after consultation with the appropriate responsible minister.

The Communications Security Establishment, CSE, has requested that no special treatment be accorded to it...and that no special adaptation of the bill for regulation is necessary. By this amendment, special reference to Canadian Security Establishment is therefore deleted.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 38 as amended agreed to

On clause 39 - Powers, duties and functions of Minister

Ms Catterall: I move to amend the French version of clause 39 of Bill C-64 by striking out line 19 on page 25 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

b) d'entreprendre des re-

[English]

The Chair: Is there any explanation or debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Loney: I move to amend clause 39 of Bill C-64 by striking out lines 38 to 40 on page 25 and substituting the following:

the requirements of that Program with respect to the implementation of employment equity by contractors to whom the Program applies are equivalent to the requirements with respect to the implementation of employment equity by an employer under this act.

The rationale, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment specifies more clearly the government's commitment to fairness in regulation, placing the same obligations on contractors as on federally regulated employers. Designated group organizations and unions especially urge that federal contractors be required to meet the same obligations as other covered employers.

The amendment was requested by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, among others.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: We are on amendment G-40.

Ms Catterall: This is to amend clause 39.

.1540

I move to amend clause 39 by adding the words:

[Translation]

apte au travail

[English]

The Chair: Is there any explanation or debate on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is similar to the change you have made about the labour force?

Ms Catterall: Yes, it is exactly the same change.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 39 as amended agreed to

Clauses 40 to 42 inclusive agreed to

The Chair: I note we have an amendment to add new clause 42.1.

Mr. Wood: I move to amend Bill C-64 by adding, immediately after the heading, ``Consequential amendments'', after line 34 on page 26, the following:

42.1 Section 5 of the Broadcasting Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Employment equity

4) Where a broadcasting undertaking is subject to the Employment Equity Act, the powers granted to the Commission do not extend to the regulation or supervision of matters concerning employment equity in relation to that broadcasting undertaking.

The rationale, Mr. Chairman, is that broadcasting undertakings with 100 or more employees have been subject to both the Employment Equity Act and to the CRTC's employment equity requirements pursuant to the policy mandate set out in paragraph 3(1)(d) and section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. This dual regulation has left broadcast undertakings to deal with overlapping and sometimes different requirements of each act.

The amendment will relieve the CRTC of its mandate to review broadcast undertakings with 100 or more employees for the purpose of employment equity. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters feels the amendment is necessary to avoid confusion, duplication and unnecessary expense for both broadcasters and government. It was requested by the CRTC and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 43 agreed to

On clause 44

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Would you like me to explain this, Mr. Chairman?

An hon. member: What number?

Mr. Ménard: It is the C044-027.13b. I think it is the B-18.

Excuse me for a minute, Mr. Chairman, I have to consult our counsels.

Mr. Chairman, it is amendment C044-027.13b, which is the B-18. It comes from the rather simple idea that there could a complaint on the basis of all the information provided in the employer's report. I don't think this could summarize it more briefly.

.1545

It is quite harmless, but it is important because it would allow to consider all the information provided in the report to determine if a complaint could be filed.

[English]

The Chair: Is this the same as saying a complaint based on statistics?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It would be the whole report. Therefore, a complaint would also be filed on the basis of qualitative information.

[English]

The Chair: The amendment has been proposed. Any debate on the amendment on the government side?

Ms Catterall: Since it was just put in front of us, I'd like a couple of minutes to make sure I understand it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Maloney: Is there a difference between B-17 and B-18? We're dealing with B-18?

Ms Catterall: Yes.

Mr. Maloney: B-17 is out.

The Chair: I just asked the research staff, because I asked you the question, about the statistics. You will see statistics as well in the report, right? The report contains statistics on the quality and the quantity.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, but now, the Bill has added something fundamental: the employers can provide qualitative information about the action that has been taken to promote employment equity. There won't be only statistics.

[English]

The Chair: Would the witness give any information for clarification? The government wants to study this closely. Have you seen a copy of the amendment?

Ms Stinson: Yes.

The Chair: What is your understanding of this?

Ms Stinson: Based on a very preliminary view, my understanding is this is the opposite to the proposal which is currently in the bill. The current bill prevents a complaint from being made under the Canadian Human Rights Act based on employment equity statistics alone.

The effect of this would be to allow a complaint to be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission based on employment equity statistics alone. So it appears to be the exact contrary of what the bill currently proposes.

I might be able to add one thing. The reason the current bill proposes to prevent a discrimination case from being dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act based on employment equity statistics alone is that when we now have an enforcement mechanism for employment equity, we believe that mechanism provides a full and proper avenue to remedy cases of under-representation. Therefore we should prevent in essence what is an identical kind of a case from arising under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This is part of the same kind of argument about reducing the costs, making sure there is no duplication of effort - , we are not going through the same kind of procedure with the same employer simultaneously under the Canadian Human Rights Act through a complaint process of discrimination under that act...at the same time, with that same employer, for an employment equity plan to change the representation, where there is under-representation, under the Employment Equity Act.

So the purpose of making sure we do not have the same matter dealt with under both pieces of legislation is, first, for legislative clarity; second, to ensure there's no double jeopardy for an employer to have to go through two different enforcement mechanisms on potentially the same matter; and third, cost.

Part of the point that was made earlier by the Reform Party, about the costs and the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has estimated they will not need additional resources to undertake the new mandate they're receiving with this bill, is that certain activities will no longer need to be undertaken under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

.1550

The Canadian Human Rights Act method is to receive a complaint or generate one, as the case may be, provide for a full process of investigation, which may indeed be very lengthy, and provide for a long process of interviews and negotiation back and forth in seeking a remedy to a complaint procedure. This process would be eliminated as a discrimination process under the Human Rights Act only for those employers that are subject to enforcement under the Employment Equity Act.

The procedure under the Employment Equity Act, as it envisages an on-site audit, is faster and more efficient. It can get the job dealt with. It can look at all the statistics and all the records within the place of employment that demonstrate under-representation. It allows for an assessment to be made whether further measures need to be taken or a different level of goals and timetables needs to be set as part of the plan, in order to remedy the identified under-representation.

Based on that understanding of preventing complaints - what I would call employment equity report-type complaints - by preventing those complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act and by enabling a full compliance and enforcement procedure under the Employment Equity Act, the resource levels will be adequate to be able to ensure employers under the Employment Equity Act will be proceeding to remedy the cases of under-representation.

Ms Catterall: We're making nice progress here, Mr. Chair, so I wonder if I might take a minute or two to pursue this.

Clearly the department had two options when it made this choice. It could have said in cases where there are two cases involving the same employer and it's a question of employment equity or discrimination based on statistics, either it will be dealt with as an EE case or it will be dealt with as a human rights case, but it won't be dealt with as both.

Can you tell me clearly why it was determined that it was better to deal with it as an employment equity case than as a human rights case and what changes when it's dealt with as an employment equity case rather than as a human rights case?

Putting aside the double jeopardy, we're saying it could be dealt with either way. Why this way?

Ms Stinson: I can tell already I won't be able to remember all the points I need to make to answer your question.

Ms Catterall: Start with the second part of the question, then. Who loses what rights when it's dealt with as an employment equity case instead of a human rights case?

Ms Stinson: I don't view the situation as anyone losing any rights. I think what we're looking at is a mechanism to ensure that where there is a case of under-representation, if need be there can be an enforcement mechanism to ensure that under-representation is corrected.

Ms Catterall: So there's no enforcement mechanism under the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 10, ``Complaints''?

Ms Stinson: You're saying it could be done in one place or it could be done in the other, but we're not going to do both, so which is the better way?

Ms Catterall: Yes.

Ms Stinson: One thing that has been important in the development of employment equity in Canada is the notion that employment equity plans, procedures, programs and activities can be undertaken without a prior finding of discrimination. It can therefore take place without a finding of fault.

In fact Ken Norman used to call this a no-fault remedy. You don't have to prove an employer's been bad, first of all, and has discriminated in order to go for a remedy.

[Translation]

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Ménard should give us his opinion about that.

Mr. Ménard: I was trying to relate what the Deputy Minister has said with what my counsel is telling me. The rationale for the amendment we have proposed was to allow complaints to be filed on the basis of information that is not statistical information.

.1555

Maybe I did not understand that aspect of the bill properly, because it seems to be the case anyway. I wanted to check with our legal advisor if I had missed it. I will keep it in mind and seek clarification.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Okay.

Ms Stinson: As a conceptual basis I simply wanted to say that was part and parcel of the way employment equity was developed. There would not be a finding of fault in order to remedy under-representation.

Therefore consistent with that, simply having a numerical under-representation did not, in and of itself, prove discrimination. It did, however, create the need for the employer to enter into an employment equity program, and that is the foundation of the Employment Equity Act.

If I go further then to say, so what would be the difference if we were to pursue a case of under-representation through the Human Rights Act or through the Employment Equity Act, what I would say is we believe that by pursuing it through the Employment Equity Act the approach is broader - it's more broadly based - and it is a more comprehensive human resource management process the employer enters into, and it is likely to result in a broader and fairer result for all groups.

I would illustrate that by saying in contrast, a human rights discrimination case by and large needs to have certain features of particularity about it. It needs to say it's for this group, it's for this occupation, it's on this occasion, it's in this part of the country, it's this particular selection process. It needs to identify the kind of practice or the occasion that has the effect of excluding an individual or groups, and in doing that it needs to prove that through a whole investigatory kind of mechanism. Therefore the result of that kind of investigation is to provide a remedy for that particular group, that occupational level, that particular practice. So the remedy could well be what we would normally think of as an employment equity remedy, but with respect to the specific aspect that has been identified as the discriminatory aspect.

Ms Catterall: And that aspect only.

Ms Stinson: That aspect only.

That's one reason, we believe, it is a better mechanism to engage in the Employment Equity Act an on-site audit and a corrective kind of process within the employer's place of employment that addresses all the employment systems, for all the employment groups, for all the designated groups in the strategic, planned and regularized employment equity plan, with goals and timetables that can be implemented over time.

We think the overall result is fairer on a broader base throughout the place of employment, and also we'll remedy in its implementation any other possible areas within that place of employment where there may also be a problem. It's a much broader system-wide approach that is undertaken.

So we don't view it as a way where anyone is losing any rights. We view it that we need a system to ensure if there is a significant level of under-representation, we have a way to correct that. We believe with the Employment Equity Act and with the bill we have a way to correct that and it's the way which is the broadest and most far-reaching way to correct it.

Ms Catterall: Thank you.

This is subject to further debate, but I have become convinced by this argument that in fact we have a better solution, a more comprehensive solution, to such cases under the Employment Equity Act than has existed under the Human Rights Act.

The Chair: Is there further debate? Are you persuaded?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would have a question on a legal aspect for our Advisor, but it's private.

.1600

At the outset, the Bloc québécois' position was that any plaintiff should be able to base his case on evidence other than qualitative.

Since then, we decided to require the use of qualitative data in the reports.

I know that witnesses have told the committee that, to a certain extent, it may be dangerous, because it gives only a partial view of the situation, to allow complaints on the basis of statistics, but with our amendment, people would have been able to use one or the other or both, if I understood correctly our legal advisor's explanations.

So, I would push for our amendment, because with the bill, in its' present form, it would not be possible to file a complaint solely on the basis of statistics, however conclusive they may be.

I don't know if we all see the problem.

[English]

The Chair: The chair would like to comment. According to the Canadian Human Rights Act today - and that act still remains active - despite the passage of this bill, the Canadian Human Rights Act still prevails. Under that act one may utilize any basis for complaint, including statistics supplementing that.

However, this bill will preclude the use of statistics alone. This is where I see the value of it, to invite employers to be open in their revelation of the statistics, to allow that full cooperation, knowing that having revealed all their secrets and data that those alone cannot then be a basis of individual complaints.

In other words, there will be a so-called tendency not to incriminate yourself. Therefore you may want to withhold some data. And yet, full revelation of data really is the intent of providing that remedy, helping all, and therefore helping every individual member of every designated group. So, in other words, I can see the value. It's a balance.

The individual may still in fact complain under the Canadian Human Rights Act and may still use the statistics, but the statistics alone ought not to be the basis, because they are being gathered for a specific purpose. That is to help groups at large, which includes every member of that group. That is why I am persuaded by the government's approach of balancing the two interests. Churchill said that's what politics is all about, the reconciliation of competing demands.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You will have learned a lesson in the last few days, because it's not always possible. Maybe you will write about it in your memoirs.

But, I understand what you're saying, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before us would allow for a remedy strictly on the basis of statistics. I can see where that could be a problem because it would be incomplete.

When we gave our directives to the research staff, we did not make the use of qualitative evidence compulsory, maybe the amendment should not be adopted. I would like to convince myself that it should not be.

I think I will withdraw it.

.1605

[English]

The Chair: There is one additional prescription to convince you to withdraw it, and that is in the narrating report a comment may be made that if after the review of the act five years later this poses a problem, then it can be revisited at that time.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think that you are already a candidate for another term of office, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We'll remain optimistic. So you would like to withdraw it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We withdraw it.

[English]

Amendment withdrawn

The Chair: We shall then proceed to the government amendment G-42.

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, that's a motion that the French version of clause 44 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out line 15 on page 27 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

l'article 40 pour connaître des plaintes qui, à la fois, sont

[English]

The rationale for this again is a minor technical amendment for businesses between the French and English versions, and the section modified in the Canadian Human Rights Act to make the two acts more complementary. The modification makes it clear that the kind of complaint that may not be dealt with by the commission must meet the criteria of both paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b), not just either paragraph alone.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 44 as amended agreed to

Clauses 45 to 51 inclusive agreed to

The Chair: Now we will go back to consideration of amendments that we have allowed to stand, and I think we will start with Mr. Ménard's amendment of B-5.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we stood these amendments because the minister's office and the parliamentary secretary indicated that they were prepared to consider the principle of these amendments and to consider whether there was a revised wording that might be acceptable to Mr. Ménard and to the government members of the committee. Since neither the parliamentary secretary nor the minister's assistant are here, we're in a bit of a dilemma because we don't have any feedback from that process.

Now, I have just spoken to Roxanne Dubé and the problem is that the minister is appearing before a committee and will probably be at that committee until somewhere between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., so neither she nor the parliamentary secretary are available to come back to this committee.

If I can suggest, probably the best way to resolve as much as we can today is to simply recess this committee until the minister's representatives are available to us or have had a chance to perhaps talk to Mr. Ménard and we might be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on those things that we stood by reconvening at 5:30 p.m., say.

The Chair: Yes, that is one approach. Would that include B-13 and B-16-1? What are being considered?

Ms Catterall: Yes, I'm trying to remember all the amendments. We stood the amendment with respect to the appointment of members to the tribunal. We stood amendments with respect to the consultation process and there was one before that, clause 23, enforcement. Are those the only three?

.1610

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: In fact, we have decided that clauses 14, 20 and 23 shall stand. But I don't recall clause 25 being stood.

Would it be possible to meet the Minister at 5:30 p.m.? If so, there's no problem. Otherwise, the Minister could consider the matter and then, at report stage in the House, we could discuss the amendment and then keep in touch. I think you know where I stand on the matter. I have no objection to changing the wording for these principles to be included in the legislation.

I don't mind though if you think we can settle it once and for all at 5:30 p.m. Otherwise, when the House comes back we will have an opportunity to debate clause 14 at report stage, and this clause as you know is highly important to me.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, the only difficulty I can see with following the first course is that we would have to wrap up our business now by approving the clauses as they stand, even knowing that we possibly wish to make some amendments to them.

The Chair: I sought the advice of the clerk to ensure that considerations of the Bloc's amendments B-5, B-13 and B-16-1 at report stage will have to be withdrawn - not stood, but withdrawn - and therefore deemed not conceded at the committee. The negotiations will go on, and whatever transpires does not preclude Mr. Ménard from introducing them at report stage. Also, that will go for the government amendment on G-28, because considerations of these three - according to the clerk - will have an implication when G-28 is passed. The government amendment is also stood at this time.

Or recess if in fact there is a likelihood of the meeting of the minds - a reconciled approach - at a later date. At a later time today, if the likelihood is not there, and since Mr. Ménard is agreeable to consider this at report stage, assuming there is that opportunity - and not defeated on a technicality.... Right?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I am prepared to introduce them at report stage. Could we consider meeting the Minister at 5:30 p.m.?

Ms Catterall: The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Ménard: That's okay.

Ms Catterall: In any case, we'll have some of the amendments in draft form.

Mr. Ménard: Frankly, I prefer to give the government some leeway because then it might look upon the clause more preferably or even accept it. I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman. If that is not the case and that the government has already made up its mind, - but I seem to have understood that the minister is quite open regarding these amendments - then maybe we should give him the necessary time.

Ms Catterall: He would only have one hour.

Mr. Ménard: You think that we should adjourn the meeting and reconvene at 5:30 p.m. to see what the minister has to suggest regarding the three amendments we stood? You are quite convinced that the minister will agree to the principles underlying these amendments and that he would like to include them in the bill?

[English]

Ms Catterall: That's exactly the indication I have from the ministers legislative assistant, that for at least one of those subject-matters there is a revised wording that we think would accomplish the same thing in an acceptable way.

The Chair: So his position then is to stand proceedings until 5:30 p.m.

Ms Catterall: Yes, 5:30 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Wait a moment. Could the Clerk call back the members?

.1615

So that everyone will understand correctly, the following amendments stand: B-5, which deals with clause 14, B-10 and B-13 which deal with clause 20; B-13 is a consequential amendment. I think that we have another one.

Ms Catterall: And Bill 13 deals with which clause?

Mr. Ménard: B-13 also deals with clause 14, but it is a consequential amendment. Did we stand B-14?

[English]

The Chair: Is there a B-14?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I think we stood amendment B-14.1. Am I right? You're saying B-16? We did stand B-16.1.

[English]

The Chair: B-16, yes.

Ms Catterall: Not B-14.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): The new version of B-14.1 was rejected by the committee.

The Chair: B-13, B-16.1.

Ms Catterall: That's for clause 25.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: There are three for the Bloc. I told you there were three: B-5, B-16.1...

Ms Catterall: Which clause are we talking about?

Mr. Ménard: B-15 deals with clause 14, which is the most important. We also have amendements B-16.1 and B-13. Is that right?

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): That is correct.

Mr. Ménard: B-13 is a consequential amendment.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We had also stood amendment G-28, a government amendment. There were therefore be four. Am I right?

[English]

The Chair: Yes. Is that right? Four on the Bloc and one for the government.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: There would therefore be three for the Bloc and one for the government. So we will meet again at 5:30 with a minister who is a very good mood and full of pleasant thoughts as far as I'm concerned. That would finally put an end to our study of this legislation.

[English]

The Chair: We have unanimous consent to suspend our proceedings and to resume at 5:30 p.m. and continue sitting until clause-by-clause study is concluded. The meeting is suspended.

.1619

.1744

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: The government has decided to introduce an amendment to clause 14, and we have it in front of us.

.1745

This amendment which, for the purpose of our work, bears number C014-009.36f, would read as follows: ``That clause 14 of Bill C-64 be amended by striking out lines 44 and 45 on page 9 and substituting the following: ``The employer and employee representatives shall collaborate to the preparation, implementation and revision of the employer's employment equity plan.''''

First of all, as an introductory note, I would like to say that I very much appreciate the openness showed by the government to take into account the principles put forward by the Bloc.

After checking with lawyers, I realize that the paragraph, as it is, is lacking the teeth we wished it had. I understand that it doesn't even have sound legal grounds. It has the appearances of a mere wishful thinking and even if it gives some ideas as to what the will of the lawmaker is, one cannot pretend that it rests on firm legal basis.

As a first question, I would like our witnesses to explain to us both the operational and the legal impact of embodying this amendment into a bill which by the way I find quite interesting.

[English]

The Chair: The witness may respond, please. Do you have a copy of the amendments? I would request that the witness be given a copy.

Mr. Dixon: The provision requires the employer and employee representatives to collaborate on the preparation, implementation, and revision. The collaboration is to work together, so they work together. It's an obligation to work together in the implementation. It's not quite as specific as that they jointly implement, but they must cooperate. They will work together to that end.

We make clear with the rule of interpretation that follows that this is not to be construed as co-management - that is, joint decision-making on hiring, for example - but they must basically cooperate, work together. I don't know how much more clearly I can -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Whatever. As far as the co-management principle is concerned, both sides here agree that this is not the kind of thing we would like to see implemented. But I understand that there would be no grounds for dispute.

There is no official mean to penalize the lack of collaboration. For instance, an audit agent, or rather an enforcement officer, realizing that collaboration is insatisfactory, wouldn't have any recourse as the bill is specifically aimed at employers.

.1750

[English]

Mr. Dixon: With the exception of this one addition, all the obligations that are imposed under the act are obligations imposed on employers.

Clause 23 is the clause that relates to the matters that could be the subject of a compliance audit. The only obligations it identifies as those subject to a compliance audit, and ultimately the subject of directions by the commission, are employer obligations. This particular collaboration obligation, which is an obligation that rests on both the employer and the employees' representatives, is not included as one of those that would be the subject of a compliance audit, a sanction, and ultimately a direction.

This would change the focus of the nature of the bill in terms of the enforcement process. We'd have to add provisions for sanctioning the union or the bargaining agent with respect to this particular obligation. If it was to be made enforceable, it would depart from the scope of the bill as it is now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, to be frank with you, I would have preferred a compelling provision. However, I realize after discussing with public servants and my colleagues within the government, that I find myself five years ahead of my time and I am now ready to come to the conclusion that we might as well adopt the proposal before us on the grounds that we may wish, five years from now, be able as a society to make things a little more positively more compelling and that consultation at that time will be part of the business operations and that eventually, if we then propose what I would like to see implemented today, there won't be any angry outcry.

But as politics is progressive by nature, as it is something which is being built up day after day, I understand that we may not be there yet. I am not inclined either to impose something which could be ill-perceived by one or the other party.

I will then agree with the government's proposed amendment, being nevertheless realistic about its limitations, and also being quite satisfied with the kind of openness the government showed, knowing that if in five years from now - and you know how uncertain the future is on our side - we are still sitting in Parliament, at the time of the review of the law we will be able to make an additional step forward.

That's what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.

Ms Catterall: Let me tell you that the future isn't certain for us all.

Mr. Ménard: Yes, as a matter of fact I was going to add these remarks myself, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: I understand that Mr. Ménard will move this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Before I call for a vote, I will correct one word used. It is not ``if'' but ``when'' back in Parliament.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I will take it as a sign of friendship but you're very much aware of the right of people to self-determination. But that is another debate and if we have to come back we will be there.

.1755

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

On that note then, I would like to call the vote on this amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 14 as amended agreed to

On clause 23 - Employer undertaking

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, is amendment B-13 yours again?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You said B-13 or B-16.1?

The Chair: B-13.

Mr. Ménard: B-13, that was the one which... I think it is a consequential amendment. I don't think it had any link with clause 14. It falls, doesn't?

Mr. Chairman, once again, justice is your savior. This is a consequential amendment to the one we just adopted. I understand we may adopt one or the other.

[English]

The Chair: This is a consequential amendment to the other one.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: This is what I'm told.

[English]

The Chair: Is this clear to the government side? Not yet?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: This is paragraph 23(1)(f).

.1800

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I will beg your pardon because I did not fully evaluate the scope of this amendment and in light of what we've just adopted, I do not wish, at the present time, to have this amendment adopted by the committee as it would also create a penalty for the unions. As a matter of fact, with the Bill as it is now, the onus is on the employers at all times.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think we now need to move a government amendment that we haven't dealt with yet.

The Chair: G-23.

Ms Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: I think we have adopted that. But we have agreed to re-open it if necessary, on unanimous consent.

Ms Catterall: This creates a penalty for non-compliance to provide the information. Was it intended also to create a penalty on the employer for non-compliance with the requirement to collaborate?

The Chair: If I may give an opinion on that, as the counsel was explaining and I was hearing, the collaboration is really to work together. So it is one step higher than consultation. What is not clear in the term ``collaboration'' is the give and take. Now, failing the give and take in collaboration, one may claim there has not been any collaboration. If we allow a penalty to be imposed following that, then it will pose a great onus for litigation to happen.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I thought that both could add up. But I have been just told that because of that the union could be penalized. Then I withdraw what I said, because we are not there yet.

[English]

The Chair: So you're withdrawing your amendment now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Correct.

[English]

The Chair: You read my mind.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I read in your mind?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So the amendment is withdrawn.

Ms Catterall: Could I ask if the clerk can verify that we did deal with government amendment G-23?

The Chair: It was adopted.

Ms Catterall: Have we adopted clause 14 as amended?

The Chair: Yes.

Shall clause 23 as amended carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Could you remind us what the rationale was?

You are talking about G-23 amending clause 23, isn't it? Paragraph f) is being modified.

[English]

Ms Catterall: Quite simply, we've put in a new requirement for the employer to provide information to the employee, and what this does - it wasn't there before - is provide a penalty if they don't provide the information, if they fail to consult, if they fail to establish and maintain employment equity records.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I should consider that as a gift made by the majority to the Bloc. You will easily understand, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot vote against this amendment.

Ms Catterall: It's a gift to the people of Canada.

Mr. Ménard: Sorry, Did you say a gift for Canada?

Ms Catterall: Yes.

.1805

[English]

Clause 23 as amended agreed to

On clause 25 - Establishment of Tribunals

The Chair: We go now to amendment 16.1. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I now wish to inform you that I would like us to discuss amendment 16.1, dealing with the composition of the pannel, at the report stage to the House.

[English]

The Chair: Your intention is to withdraw this?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: No. My intent is to file it at the report stage.

[English]

The Chair: At report stage of committee?

Ms Catterall: He's not withdrawing it; he's not moving it at all.

The Chair: That's right, yes. He's not moving it because it has not been moved before.

It was moved. So we need consent to have it withdrawn.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: That's it.

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we go to government amendment G-28 on clause 25.

Ms Catterall: Just before we move this one, I think we had the Bloc's amendment moved already, did we not, or has that been withdrawn?

The Chair: It's been withdrawn now.

Ms Catterall: Okay. Let me just comment that I couldn't have supported that amendment had it been presented because it is too coercive, I believe, and too restrictive and not realistic in terms of how the panel operates, the size of the panel and so on.

On the other hand, it incorporated two ideas where the government amendment incorporates only one idea, which is that the chair, in appointing tribunal members, should take into account their expertise. The Bloc amendment that was just withdrawn also included consideration, in different terms, of representivity of the tribunal of the designated groups. I still think that's a worthwhile concept. But there is no motion on the table right now that deals with that, and I want to be assured that in fact if we go ahead and move 28, that section is still open for amendments to include the designed groups among the factors to be considered in appointing tribunal members. Can I have some...?

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): At report stage?

Ms Catterall: Yes.

The Clerk (Mr. Cole): Yes.

Ms Catterall: Yes? I would then move amendment G-28. I presume we can dispense with the reading?

The Chair: Any further debate? You have more or less given the rationale.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We cannot agree on everything. We sometimes have to disagree.

[English]

The Chair: Those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I will vote against, we should have a recorded vote so that people are assured that I abide by my principles.

[English]

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

.1810

Clause 25 as amended agreed to

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: It is agreed to on division as I proposed an amendment which was defeated.

[English]

The Chair: Now we shall proceed to clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

Ms Catterall: Why are we going back to clause 1?

The Chair: This is the standing order. We proceed first with all the clauses, then we go back with the title and the bill, and so on. It's just the standing order.

Ms Catterall: Then I think this is the appropriate point for me to raise another issue, Mr. Chair.

This bill is about employment equity. At least in French, this bill is written in male gender terms, and I would like to move an omnibus motion - and I'm looking for some guidance as to how to do that - that wherever necessary, the bill be amended so that it is written in fully gender-inclusive language.

For example, it has become common in legislation to use not

[Translation]

«le président», but «la présidence» in French.

[English]

when we're referring to the title. I think that's the title in front of you, monsieur le président.

There are a number of other terms throughout the bill that are in male-only terms that do have a female version in French, and I think particularly on this bill it is important that it be fully balanced.

What I'm not so certain about is procedurally how that may be managed without going through the bill. I believe there is such a process as an editorial amendment that applies to the entire bill.

The Chair: Since at committee level consideration of amendments comes clause by clause, and that has been done now, the clerk's advice is to propose an amendment at report stage where it can be grouped for all of them so that it wouldn't be so laborious and still can be considered.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think there is a process; there is a type of drafting amendment that can be made that does not have to be done line by line, word by word. I wonder if we can have any advice on that, if there is any possibility of doing it as a global one.

The Chair: Interpreting the rules of the committee, again, that very high principle that the committee is master of itself, particularly if we have unanimous consent, then it can propose it as an amendment, certainly as advice, and if there are any technical problems then it will have to be decided perhaps by the chamber.

Ms Catterall: I think it can be handled as a drafting change rather than a change to the bill or to the clause.

The Chair: Perhaps it can come as a separate motion, aside from this but relevant to this.

.1815

Ms Catterall: That's what I'd like to be clear about before we finalize the bill.

The Chair: Would the counsel give advice on both sides?

Ms Catterall is suggesting a drafting amendment or what have you. One possible approach is that the committee is master of itself. If it can agree with unanimous consent to the intent of the directive insofar as the use of language to reflect gender balance is concerned, might it be in order then to have a separate motion referring to this bill so that in the final drafting of the bill, before printing, that kind of thing is reflected?

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): I wonder if there might not be some difficulties involved in doing it that way. In a way you'd be buying a pig in a poke. You'd be saying ``I'd like you to make changes to a certain end'', but you wouldn't get to see the changes before they were made, whereas if -

Ms Catterall: [Inaudible]...if there were a general motion that before reporting the bill to the House it be redrafted so that all language is gender-inclusive. Then if there are minor errors in that when it reaches the House, they can be corrected by simple amendments.

I wonder if Ms Rowley could comment. Apparently she has consulted with Justice.

Ms Susannah Rowley (Chief of Compliance, Legislated Employment Equity Program, Department of Human Resources Development): Yes, I spoke to Ann Sheppard at the drafting department there. She's told me that the language in the bill is in fact gender-neutral. They make a conscious effort to keep the language gender-neutral. Whereas references used to be made, for example, to ``chairman'', we no longer see those references in the English.

With respect to the French versions, which I believe were the examples you mentioned - le président and you preferred to see la présidence - she said that in French the gender of a word is not the same thing as the sex of a person. In French grammar the gender accords with the function of the word itself, not with the gender of the person occupying that position.

For example, le président will be the same whether it's a woman or a man occupying the position. Le salarié will remain the same whether it's a female or a male employee. Le représentant will be the same whether it's a woman or a man who's occupying the position.

I said to her that it seems to be common to see publications where you have an extra ``e'' in parentheses, like les invité(e)s. She said that is in fact incorrect. Of course the committee is free to do whatever it wants, but according to the rules of French grammar, that is not customary or correct.

She further said that in the interest of maintaining consistency with the drafting principles used in other acts, she would advise against changing. Apparently the French drafting is gender-neutral and has always been gender-neutral. It's only in the English versions that gender neutrality is an issue.

The Chair: I believe in the principle that consistency is a virtue, but when consistency denotes progress, it becomes a greater virtue.

Ms Catterall: May I comment further, Mr. Chair?

If I write l'employé, if I'm talking about a woman, I put an ``e'' on the end of it. If I'm talking about a woman, I would say la salariée. If I'm talking about a woman, I would say la représentante, would I not, Réal?

.1820

Therefore, what your adviser is saying is that the male includes the female. That has been rejected in English a long time ago.

If I can cite a precedent, these kinds of changes were made, and I believe it was in the legislation establishing the Canadian Space Agency.... I will say that le président would change to la présidente, with enthusiastic support from government members on the committee at that time, including one or two who are now members of the official opposition.

I think we're at a crossroads. I would have been told exactly the same thing about the English version ten years ago, that the male includes the female. You would no longer tell me that, and I will no longer accept that in French either.

Mr. Ménard may wish to speak a little more about his mother language.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Réal.

Mr. Ménard: I believe this is a very important issue and although you might have got the impression that I wasn't listening to you, you were wrong. I was indeed listening.

It would be interesting to know what translaters think about that. I always thought that whatever you wrote, you needed to use the masculine and the feminine, but I have been told several times that, in grammatical terms it was not proper language, it was a mistake.

It would be interesting, I think, to ask the advice of people for whom the French and the English languages are tools of their trade; as far as I'm concerned, I fully agree with you, but I have been told that, in French, it's a mistake.

What you're asking is perfectly right if we want things to change in our society and if we want to put an end to male chauvenistic attitudes. But what we are told, for instance, is that the term La présidence refers to a position and that it is gender neutral, whether a man or a woman holds that function. Les salariés with an «s» includes both men and women. Les «représentants» should also include, we are told, les «représentantes». If we don't introduce that kind of nuances by using the feminine form of the word, it means that we'll always take for granted that the masculine includes the feminine. It's a question of using correct language versus encouraging progress.

[English]

Ms Catterall: If I can disagree, I never hear the Prime Minister speak in the House of Commons without referring to les Canadiens et les Canadiennes, les deux, en deux mots séparés.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have to say, however, that the French of our Prime Minister is not always perfect, but on this particular point, you are right. With all due respect to the Prime Minister.

Ms Catterall: But I'm sure that this also applies to the leader of the Bloc québécois.

Mr. Ménard: His French is very good and his English...

Ms Catterall: Is very inclusive.

Mr. Ménard: Are you talking about the country or the use of the feminine?

Ms Catterall: The use of the feminine.

[English]

The Chair: I think the counsel has some opinions to offer.

Mr. Michael Clegg (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not qualified to make any comment about French grammar, but there is a particular point that I believe the drafter was referring to in the conversation you had earlier; that is, some of the phrases used in this act do not originate in this act but in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

For example, le président, the president of the panel. It is in a masculine form in French. We can't really change that in this act because it is words borrowed from the Canadian Human Rights Act. The only way we can change that is to go into the Canadian Human Rights Act and carry out a whole series of consequential amendments in that act to bring in the proper gender-neutral title into this bill. It's a very long process.

We have some legislation that is still male-gender-dominated in English, but gradually we are de-genderizing the legislation as we go. The word le président du panel, or whatever it is in the French version, is taken straight from the other act, and we can't really change that in this bill because that's a title that's given to us from outside.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to be advised as to how to word it in the way that's going to cause the least problem.

.1825

The Chair: Seek the counsel of the clerk.

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): Mr. Chairman, we're on clause 1 and the other clauses have been adopted, so perhaps Ms Catterall might want to move it as part of the reprint motion and we'll see what happens.

Ms Catterall: No. I want to know before we get to that, before I approve clause 1 and the title, if it's going to be in order or not.

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): I know of no precedent, Ms Catterall, but we'll certainly do our best. If the reprint motion said something like, ``To be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at the report stage, with gender-neutral language in French'', perhaps that would be sufficient to have the drafter make the changes as they went along.

The Chair: Would you agree to that as a separate motion?

Ms Catterall: I will agree to that provided the clerk will not get an advisory to rule us out of order.

The Chair: Now I see.

We have agreement on the approach and agreement on the substance.

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Here is a clause where the committee be ordered to make a reprint for use at the report stage.

Ms Catterall: And my amendment to that motion is that it be as revised to ensure that all language is gender-exclusive.

The Clerk (Mr. Bellemare): Are you looking at revisions of the English as well?

Ms Catterall: We started doing that years ago in English, so I don't think it'll be necessary, but just in case....

The Chair: Say in both official languages.

Ms Catterall: Yes, in both official languages. It's understood. That does not need to be.... Be part of the revolution, Réal.

[Translation]

M. Ménard: You are my comrade.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the amendment as proposed carry?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms Catterall: I want to make a comment. I believe that since shortly after 10 o'clock this morning the atmosphere in this committee has been one of extremely good cooperation. I think it's been so largely throughout the preparation of our report.

I want to say particular thanks to Mr. Ménard, because there are a number of us here and he's been all alone. I thank him for his cooperation.

Is it appropriate to pay tribute, on the record, to the legislative assistant of the minister, who, along with his officials, has been of extraordinary assistance to the committee compared to other experiences I've had?

The Chair: The committee is master of itself so it can say what it wants.

Mr. Dromisky: I propose a vote of thanks and appreciation to the captain guiding us through stormy waters. We reached our port safely.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.