Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.
Reform opposes this type of legislation and I certainly oppose it. Affirmative action by any other name is still affirmative action. It leads to the creation of special designation groups and causes reverse discrimination as the process of merit hiring is forced to take a back seat to artificially created criteria.
The annual report of employment equity for 1994 clearly shows there is no need for this legislation. Visible minorities represent 8 per cent of the workforce governed by the current act compared to 9 per cent of the entire Canadian workforce. The report also states that women represent 45 per cent of the workforce covered by the existing act compared to 45 per cent of the entire Canadian labour force. These two facts alone show that a hiring process unencumbered by government regulations is able to adequately address this issue.
In our lifetime let us admit it, we have seen terrible inequities. Going back to the thirties and forties, there have been gross inequities in our social system but they are being corrected over the years. Human dignity and human will are creating the redress.
I find it amazing that this government feels a need to interfere with the free job market which is working well when it fails to use the same urgency to address real issues like the debt and the deficit. Why do I say the government is acting with urgency? This bill was tabled in the House yesterday, shortly after 1500 hours. The ink on that official document could hardly have been dry at the time. I did not get to read the bill until this morning. Yet here we are less than 24 hours after its introduction being asked to debate the bill's merit. That is acting with a sense of urgency but I think it might be more accurately described as an abuse of the democratic process.
I saw the converse in this House this morning when my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, was speaking on Motion No. 13 and wanted to continue debate on it. Those on the government benches said: "Oh no, we cannot do that. We did not have enough notice". They had 48 hours' notice to continue debate but that was not sufficient for them.
Why the urgency on this bill? I do not know. Are the Liberals afraid to have the complete details of the bill brought to the attention of the Canadian public, or are they simply afraid to tell Canadians about the bureaucratic maze which has to be created by this bill?
One thing I do know is that the business people in my constituency are fed up to the teeth with government bureaucracy, with more and more taxes and more and more regulations to adhere to and forms to fill out. Canadian employers are already deluged with government imposed paperwork.
That burden is increased even more through clauses 9 to 18 of this bill which call for the collection, analysis and review of their workforce leading to the preparation of an employment equity plan, complete with long term and short term numerical goals. There is also the requirement that an annual report on employment equity be filed with the minister. Let us look at the bill.
Clause 9 states that for the purposes of implementing employment equity every employer shall collect information and conduct an analysis of the employer's workforce in accordance with the regulations in order to determine the degree of under-representation, et cetera. It goes on about conducting a review of the employer's employment systems, policies and practices in accordance with the regulations. It is only those employees who identify themselves or agree to be identified by employers as aboriginal peoples, et cetera.
Clause 10 indicates that employers shall prepare an employment equity plan that does this, that and the other thing.
Let us look a bit more at this bill which will totally discourage private enterprise. It will specify the measure to be taken by the employer. It will establish a timetable for the implementation. Where under-representation has been identified it will establish short term goals. It goes on and on and on.
Clause 11: Every employer shall ensure that its employment equity plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress.
Clause 12: Every employer shall make reasonable efforts to monitor implementation.
Clause 13 indicates that every employer shall update numerical goals at least once during the period.
Clause 14: Every employer shall consult with his employees by inviting representatives to provide their views.
It goes on and on and on. Thirty pages of bureaucracy imposed on employers around this country. Have I said that they are already deluged? Well they certainly are. All these measures will only serve to undermine the productivity of Canadian business as executives are forced to spend even more of their already limited time on needless government paperwork.
Clause 21 of the bill creates employment equity compliance review officers, or to use a less politically correct term, an affirmative action army. This army has the authority to enter any business which it feels is contravening the act and demand documents and the co-operation of the employer and staff. On reading part II of this bill I thought George Orwell would be very proud as big brother takes yet another step into our lives.
Clause 25 creates the headquarters or the command post for the affirmative action army with the establishment of an employment equity review tribunal. More bureaucracy and more tax dollars dropped into the bottomless pit that is the national debt. This government continues to talk fiscal restraint yet its actions do not match its words.
I would go further into the analysis of this bill but the government's haste to ram it through prohibits any more thorough examination.
In my own riding, residents of the city of Nanaimo are well aware of the adverse effects of this type of legislation. Several years ago the city implemented pay equity which resulted in an immediate and significant tax increase. It also has a lasting effect on the taxpayer in that the result is that the annual salary for an entry level employee will soon reach $30,000.
Another example of this type of policy was brought to my attention recently by a constituent. This young man is an exceptional student in a technical program at Malaspina College. His high marks caused the institute to nominate him for a federal scholarship. While his marks qualified him for the award, his gender did not.
The scholarships are handed out on the basis of gender. Since Malaspina did not have a female student with appropriate grades the qualified student was refused and both scholarships were given to another institution. This is the type of reverse discrimination this sort of legislation will create.
I will wind up if my time is up. Hiring policies should not be based upon race, culture or gender. They should be colour blind and gender neutral. If ever a bill epitomizes the difference in philosophy between the Liberals and I might even say the NDP and the Reform Party, this is it.
Canadians are hard pressed for programs they want and they cannot afford to pay for programs we do not need. In the interests of the already overburdened taxpayers, I urge the government to abandon this nonsensical legislation.