Madam Speaker, since this is a very new piece of legislation, for the benefit of those Canadians who watch the proceedings of the House of Commons and I know there are a number, I would like to go over one more time what the legislation is about.
This is Bill C-64. It is an act respecting employment equity. The summary says that the purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups. The bill applies to the Public Service of Canada, to federally regulated employers, and to such portions of the public sector that employs 100 or more employees.
The bill talks about employer obligations in clauses 5 to 15; records and reports, a rather ominous sound for a lot of employers, in clauses 16 to 20; compliance audit in clauses 21 to 31; assessment of monetary penalties in clauses 31 to 37; and regulations in clauses 38 to 41. It then talks about changes to other acts that will be necessitated by this legislation should it be passed.
This is fairly significant legislation with real impact on a number of employers in our country.
It important to point out that the word equity which is the feature of this legislation simply means fairness. Government members have been playing the violin a great deal this morning about how wonderfully fair this is and how we should all be committed to fairness. I am sure that every single Canadian would applaud fairness in our country. In fact something that Canadians are noted for is a real commitment to fairness.
On behalf of the people of Canada whom we represent and whose affairs we are supposed to be managing we need to analyse whether this legislation delivers on the promise of fairness.
One of the real problems with this legislation is that what it does is unfairly and to a large degree increase the interference of government in the lives of citizens, particularly in the lives of citizens trying to keep businesses going, and trying to deliver jobs for Canadians.
First of all this legislation interferes with employment choices. It suggests that for every sector of employment there has to be proportional representation in four designated groups. It says to employers that they have to hire certain people from certain groups if they are to comply with these government legislated proposals. That is a clear interference in fairness for employers to be able to hire who they think will do the best job for them.
Second, it interferes in the principle of equality before the law. What it essentially says is that you do not have as equal a chance at a job as you would if you belonged to one of four designated groups.
I had a personal experience in my riding with a young man who was trying to be admitted into the RCMP. His applications were denied until in discussions with his family he discovered that he had some aboriginal background. Because of this suddenly he became more qualified to enter the RCMP. In fact today he is a member of the RCMP. It is very interesting how merit, qualifications and choices depend on certain genetic traits rather than merit. That certainly is not consistent with the principle of equality before the law.
Third, the legislation interferes with the administration of business in the country. This legislation and all employers that will be affected by it, which is a vastly expanded group, should look at this very carefully. I am sure they will be. They will now have to produce employment plans to satisfy certain criteria.
There will have to be regular reports to bureaucrats who will be very anxiously combing them to make sure they are correct and fulfil all the obligations. There will be compliance audits on a regular basis of these businesses to make sure employers are doing the correct thing.
There may be some appeals from bureaucratic decisions that come out of these reports and audits. There will be an ever-expanding group of regulations that will have to be complied with. It is no wonder that businesses are fatigued and why job creation is lagging behind the demand for it. With all this paperwork, regulations, proposals and requirements, how can a business get on with business? Some days you wonder.
Also this legislation sets out a great deal more bureaucracy. This is a time when governments do a great deal of their work with borrowed money, by mortgaging our future and here we have yet another bureaucracy set up in the furtherance of fairness.
Nowhere in the legislation are the cost benefits set out. Nowhere in the legislation are Canadians told how this is all going to be paid for. It is their money that is being spent. They have a right to ask, is the money I am being asked to cough up for this proposal justified by the public good that is going to be done. That is an issue that needs to be debated.
Clearly it is going to be an interference in productivity of business. This is another regulatory and governmental burden being added to all the other reports that have to be made by businesses to government. It is another government regulation, another interference into the lives and work of business people.
If we want to provide Canadians with jobs, jobs, jobs how are we going to do it when we have all of these social engineering mechanisms built into our economic sector? Does this make sense and does it really benefit Canadians?
The last thing I would like to talk about is the social consequences of this type of legislation. Unfortunately it says to Canadians what is important in the economic sector is not your qualifications, it is not your merit, it is not your competence, it is not your ability, it is not your drive, it is whether you are a victim. It is what group you belong to. It is whether you can show somehow that you are disadvantaged. Is this what we want people to be thinking about?
I understand that Tommy Douglas was not very tall. I have always felt really good about him because of that for some obvious reasons to people in the House. Sometimes Mr. Douglas was teased about the fact that he was not very tall. He had a good answer to this. He used to say: "Where I come from, we measure people from here up", indicating that it is what is in your mind, what is in your head, your intelligence, ability and competence that is important. It is not your height.
I would suggest to members that what is important to us is what we have in our hearts and our ability and not what colour our skin is, what our gender is or what disability we might have-