Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as a Reform member on the standing committee on human rights to address the government's proposed legislation to extend employment equity.
Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity as tabled by the human resources minister yesterday, reflects the government's disregard for proper process in its presentation and the government's ongoing folly of spending non-existent public money to undermine the job creation abilities of Canadians and to create further division and social pressure among competing groups of otherwise talented and proud Canadians. I am delighted to take the opportunity to expand on these tenets.
Today much discussion has been shared in the House on the pros and cons of such a program. The rhetoric and mixed messages become confusing. In response I take a moment to consider how employment equity measures up to three basic and clear philosophies I believe the vast majority of Canadians would welcome and support.
According at least to the red book, Liberals too would agree, first, that deficit reduction is a major priority. They have agreed that billions of dollars in government spending must be cut to accomplish it. Second, Canada must have a credible place in the global economy. To quote from the red book:
The federal government can and should support and facilitate the national effort to prepare Canadians to compete in the world.
Third is the equality of opportunity, and again I quote:
Governments should support a framework of fundamental fairness and decency within which Canadians are able to pursue their individual goals.
Let us hold up the existing proposals of the bill against such a benchmark. It is not in viewing things in isolation but against a true measure that we can separate pretence from fact.
Even the present Liberal government is finally recognizing the debt and deficit are a major threat to Canada's present situation and future potential. Current government policy has finally recognized the connection between fiscal recklessness and unemployment, between high indebtedness and the loss of economic and fiscal sovereignty.
In a recent release from the Department of Finance entitled "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate", the government now seems to realize that the deficit problem cannot be addressed without a clear priorization of federal spending. Budgetary actions "should weigh toward reductions in expenditures". Choices must be made between high and low priority items.
Although as Reformers we believe their 3 per cent target to be totally inadequate, it has become apparent in public debate that even for that goal billions must be cut, which will demand cuts to some untouchable programs.
The first question I ask is: Should the added expense of broadening employment equity be a top priority in the mind of a budget balancing government? We must keep in mind that employment equity already exists as a policy across all public service within the Public Service Act.
Bill C-64 will mandate that approach in law though the Treasury Board now refuses to try to estimate the cost of the existing policy.
Does this imply that such a policy has been immune from the departmental review process demanded by the government in recent months? Does this imply that the policy of employment equity is so philosophically important it takes priority over federal downsizing or even some social programs? Is this so necessary as to be deemed untouchable in government operations even before it comes before Canadians for discussion? If so, who did the government listen to in order to come to that conclusion.
A Gallup poll conducted last December showed that the majority of Canadians accept the concept of equality in the workplace. However 81 per cent of Canadians oppose numerical hiring goals and 90 per cent oppose exclusionary job competition. The government is also ignoring the fact that 74 per cent of those surveyed are definitely opposed to government equity programs.
In response to the government's mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs, how will this priority program affect Canada's long term viability in the important world markets? The purpose of the act is the explicit encouragement of employers to discriminate in favour of targeted groups over all other employees, largely white able-bodied males.
No matter how we look at it, the establishment of numerical goals as outlined in the legislation means quotas. The rejection of merit as the only distinguishing characteristic dictates that the best candidate, as opposed simply to the qualifying candidate, will not necessarily be the one chosen for any particular position.
By treating some more equal than others the government's mandated policy dictates that we end up with a workforce less expert than otherwise may be possible. Canada increasingly exists within the demands of an ever expanding and increasingly competitive world market. Every means possible from sound fiscal management to excellence in every sector of the economy will be necessary for us to hold our own in the challenge of that competitive environment.
Finally I want to spend some time on the notion of equality. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims Canadians are equal before and under the law. True justice lies in a process, not in the outcome.
Any competition between two individuals, whether it be a race or a job competition, can only be deemed fair in the equal treatment during the process. The outcome is never predictable. The test of the race should never be in comparing the anticipated with the actual results.
The true test of equality of opportunity is the very randomness of the outcome. Fairness dictates only that the best man or woman wins. This legislation is not just. It establishes numerical goals that must be met, which affects the outcome in favour of those covered under the goals.
As a member of a designated group I take offence at the implications of the government's numerical goals or quotas. There is a suggestion by their very existence that somehow the system lacks confidence in the ability of women in general to really compete on a level playing field.
The same Gallup poll I referred to found that 75 per cent of women agreed with the statement that governments should not actively hire more women or minority groups. As a group, women are not at a disadvantage. The 1994 annual report indicates women are actually doing better outside the act than they are under the employment equity program.