Debates of Oct. 5th, 1995

Employment Equity Act

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

But the Liberals want it now.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

The Liberals want it now, that is right.

We get promises about those kinds of things. The government tells the whole world, all the Canadians, that they know best. They are going to get in there and tell you how to run your business, what you have to do, who you have to hire and how you have to do it.

Who do we think we are? I thought we came here to govern, not to rule.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

They didn't come here to govern. We came here to govern.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That is right, Mr. Speaker. We came here to govern; they came here to rule. This legislation is a perfect example of it.

I think it is a shame. I think it is a shame when they do not even recognize that 70 per cent of the mothers who are working have declared that if they did not have to work they would rather be home with their children. Why do we not do something to make that possible? It may be a shock to our members across the way, a shock to the member for Halifax, that there are a lot of working mothers who would really like to be home with their children. Let us make it possible. Let us cut some taxes. Let us see what we can do to help them out. But no, no, no; let's bring in things like this, because the poor dumb Canadian businessmen don't know what they are doing.

I looked at another thing that was handed to me. We are up to six now in my riding. I would like to congratulate this government; it has made it happen. There are six individuals, including my 22-year-old son, who have gone south of the border because down there they can work and up here they cannot. These six individuals are young males, and one is my son, who I would like very much to remain in Canada and be a Canadian. He has to go south because he has wanted to be a cop since he was six years old, and you do not have a hope in the devil of being a cop in this country because governments are ruling like they are today. So I thank the Liberals very much. They have confirmed that my son will not be Canadian because he cannot even get a job as a fireman, as a cop, as an EMP, nothing, none of those things, because he does not fit: he is white and male.

There are five others in my riding who have received their green cards and have notified me that they will be gone. Congratulations to the Liberals. They have chased some out. I do not suppose that is discriminatory, though. That is probably just good government. If that is good government, they can have it. I am sick of that.

I think they will find during the next election, if the Liberals want to keep pursuing these kinds of ventures, if they want to keep telling businessmen and women that they do not really know what is right, that only we in Parliament know what is right, they will be in for a rude awakening. I am certain I am going to stay healthy enough to stick around and watch it. I will laugh and laugh, just as they laugh today when we make the kinds of comments we do in regard to the kind of legislation they bring down, legislation that causes racism, that causes discrimination; it cures nothing. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one minor question.

As was noted by my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, one of the groups that supports this legislation and has called for this legislation and indeed has worked very closely with this government, the Department of Human Resources Development, the minister, the parliamentary secretary and others, a group with which I worked very closely on the area of employment equity when I was in opposition, is the Canadian Bankers Association.

When I list radical groups that are out there fighting for social policy and holding down the left wing in this country, the Canadian Bankers Association is not one that automatically leaps to mind. However, I want to congratulate the Canadian Bankers Association for its far-sightedness. It has had in place for a number of years, certainly as long as I have been a member of the House of Commons, employment equity groups. It has met with representatives from the various banks in this country. It has worked within its own organizations for the promotion of women, minorities, the disabled, and so on, and has done a fairly good job.

Now I would not want my friends in the banks in Canada to think that I am saying they are absolutely perfect, because they have a long way to go. There are a number of things I could suggest to them in areas of employment equity where they could make their record better. But they have certainly been very much in the forefront.

I do not question the member's 70 per cent of working mothers. What I do question is the interpretation of the statistics. I have many friends with children of varying ages, and there is no question that for women the ability to juggle domestic and professional duties is fairly severe. The superwoman syndrome is very hard to deal with. When you have small children it is particularly difficult to spend a lot of time away from them. However, it is more difficult not to provide them with the necessities of life, like food, shelter, and other things.

If the hon. member is suggesting that we tell all mothers of small children to stay home and that we therefore will increase the national debt by paying a salary to mothers who stay at home, I find that very interesting. Along with his explanation of why a group like the Canadian Bankers Association supports employment equity, I would like to know whether the Reform Party is advocating that we pay a salary out of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to mothers to stay at home to raise their children. I would also ask him how much he thinks that salary should be.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to answer that speech. I will start with the bankers.

Hurrah for the bankers. If they think this legislation and the practice of affirmative action is good, then let them do it. Nobody cares. If that is what they want to do, they should be entitled to. That is democracy.

What I do not think should happen is that somebody be forced into doing something that may not be the right thing to do in terms of the business, whatever that might be. I think we have to trust the judgment of employers to make certain that they do not discriminate. If they wish to have a hiring practice that resembles employment equity or affirmative action or whatever, that is democracy. Let it be their choice. There is nothing wrong with that.

I do not believe that mothers with children who choose to stay at home want to be paid. I do not think that is their request, any more than they like to pay day care and babysitters. However, I do believe that if this government were listening to some of the tax proposals and tax incentives, there are things it could do that would make it possible. The government talks about spending more money by letting mothers stay at home. I do not understand. Let them work and you are going to spend money paying day care. Do

not pay for day care. Save that money so mothers can stay home with their children and give tax breaks to the providers of the home.

Maybe they have a problem understanding arithmetic, but it makes sense to me. It used to be that married couples with one of them staying home were able to do so, but now they are not able to do so because they are treated the same way as married couples who are both working.

We can do a lot in that area. I suppose that is another topic. But no, mothers do not expect to be paid. If we are going to give extra money to other women who can work, if we are going to pay others to look after their children so they can work, then if we want to be equal I guess we will have to do the same thing for the mom who decides to stay home.

At any rate, there are not many things she said that made any sense to me. That is understandable, considering the source.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am unlucky or lucky. Each time an issue dealing with things such as employment equity, discrimination, or fairness in hiring comes up, I always speak after the member for Wild Rose. What it means is that I normally do not have to worry about going back to a speech that somebody else wrote for me. He usually incites me to find things inside that are germane to my very being, that are at the core of what I am and the reason I got into politics.

Some of the nonsense I hear espoused by that particular member does a great disservice, not only to the constituents he represents but to the party he belongs to and the Parliament he sits in. This member consistently and constantly gets up and shows that it is okay to speak in the Parliament of Canada-and I do not deny him the right or the privilege to do so-and pretend that things are other than what they are.

I listened to this member say "What about the white male?" He told everyone who was listening tonight that his 23-year-old mailman son, I think he said, had to go south of the border, had to get a green card. I am sorry for that. I hope that my son will be able to get employment in this country when he is ready to enter the labour market. But I want to give him a wake-up call. There are many sons of people in my constituency whose colour is not the same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose native language is not the same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose fathers cannot get employment in this country, not because the jobs do not exist but solely because of the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or their cultural heritage. That is the reality in this country.

If the member for Wild Rose wants to be shown, I will issue him an invitation to come down and I will walk him through the back streets of Preston, Nova Scotia, and he can meet the people who for generations have fought to be included. They have not asked to be given special treatment, they have not asked to be singled out. They have asked to be treated like his white male 23-year-old son to participate to the fullness of their ability in the labour market. That is what this is all about.

For the hon. member to deny this tells me that this individual and the fact that he can get up and speak the way he does in the House is more a testament to the tolerance of the democratic institution called Parliament than it is to the point of view he espouses.

The member opposite and the Reform Party get up and use this high office called Parliament-what John Turner used to refer to as the highest court in the land, and it is-to put forward points of view they know are dishonest, points of view that say there is no need in this country for the federal government, the lead government in this country, the highest court in the land, to put out in policies and programs what it believes are standards that should be followed in its own bailiwick, with its own employees in the areas it regulates, in federally regulated industries.

To listen to the member and those of his ilk over there one would believe that everything is rosy, that the status quo is something not just to be maintained but to be heralded. This is the way we have done it. This is the way it should be.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That is why you are doing it.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that many generations ago that blacks in Nova Scotia were not allowed to walk into theatres and sit with whites. It was not 100 years ago. It was in the early 1960s when that came to an end.

The member should look at history to find out when native Canadians, the first people in this land, were finally recognized as people and given the right to vote. That is within my generation and my lifetime.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We are talking about employment equity. I have never once indicated in my life that there should be any form of racism. I am glad racism does not exist.

[An hon. member]

That is not a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Clearly-

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I'm not going to take that crap.

[An hon. member]

Language, language.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I never called anybody a racist at any time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is the House of vigorous debate. There are strongly held views on all issues. This one is bringing out some equally strong views. I say respectfully to

the hon. member for Wild Rose that he was engaging in debate and did not have a point of order.

While I am on my feet, I would appeal to members on both sides of the House. On issues such as this which are critical and sensitive we should be respectful of the institution and one another.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that this hon. member has not alluded to anybody in the House and indicated that he or she was racist or bigoted. I am not trying to impugn the motives of members of the House. I want the record to show that the reality is in Canadian society today. Although we have come a mighty long way, there is still a mighty long way to go.

It is well within the responsibility of good government to continue to push that agenda item, the envelope as it were, to ensure the standards that Canadians want in the private work place and in the government work place are continuously upgraded and pushed forward.

I merely want to tell anybody in the House who does not know or does not understand that inequality has been a fact of life since European settlers first came to Canada. That is the reality.

It does not mean that society in and of itself is racist. It does mean that sometimes the majority in society have to understand that there may be built in barriers to participation by minority groups. It has to be understood that those barriers may be systemic and that even people from those groups, if we open the door to full participation, may not feel that the door is open.

What this bill seeks to do is not to recast the dye. It seeks to build on the original legislation that was passed in the House to include more industry in the private sector and the federally regulated area. That is all it does.

It says to employers that there may be an imbalance in the labour market. We do not want them to set quotas or numbers because I do not approve of that. Minimums become maximums in this game. It seeks to establish that there is a problem and that industry can solve the problem themselves. That is all it seeks to do.

If members come to my area or the area of the member for Halifax in our part of Nova Scotia, there are real barriers to participation to a whole variety of groups. A company should not say it wants a black with a university education, and it does not matter what the grades are, any more than it should walk in and say that it does not want a black with a university education.

It means that we should look at the labour market in the area we are in. If it is obvious there are visible or invisible barriers to participation in that labour market, that we seek as a conscious policy effort to remove those barriers. That is it. There are no quotas. There is nothing nefarious in this legislation. It simply states that the federal government believes that wherever inequality exists, it has to consciously work to remove that inequality. That is all that it says. In areas of a federally regulated workplace that is what it says.

I am not one of those individuals who believes there should be quotas because inherently it is wrong. Many times individuals are hired or are put on a board because of a quota system, either an official or unofficial quota. They could be the best qualified persons for the job, but their co-workers will not see them as a qualified individuals. They will see them as individuals that was put there simply because the number had to be filled for that particular race, gender or whatever.

We seek to break those borders down. This legislation goes in that direction. It states as a public policy that employers should work toward making sure, wherever possible, that their labour component is reflective, as best as it can be, of the mix in the labour market. In areas of large populations of blacks, indigenous blacks in Canada, the federal public service has to work toward making sure that they apply for those jobs and, if qualified, that they are hired.

Most of all, it should be seen that if they do apply for the job that they will be considered. The reality is that in many non-traditional roles for females in the public service, women do not apply any more because in the past they have been turned down so often.

If the employer is a crown corporation or a federal department and has a policy of encouraging the greater participation in the labour market of women, for instance, it sends a signal out that, yes, if the woman is qualified she can apply and should have every reason to believe that she will be judged based on her qualifications and will not be excluded based on her gender.

It is the same when dealing with blacks and it is the same when dealing with native Canadians. Go to some of the ridings where there are high numbers of natives in the population. Do the numbers in the population respond to the participation in the federal workplace? In some cases, yes, but in some cases they do not. This bill seeks to recognize that in areas like that where these factors are a reality, that a plan be put together to encourage individuals in minority communities to participate. That is it. It does not do any more than that.

It does not say we have to hire three white people who have Gaelic ancestry. It does not say that we have to hire 15 women. It says: "We want you to be conscious in the way that you run your operation that you should try to encourage participation from minority groups who traditionally might have been excluded". It is nothing more than that.

I am going to conclude my remarks because I know the member from Halifax is waiting to speak. I want to encourage this House to tone down the rhetoric a bit. I know I have been pretty upset today. I watch what I say in this place because I have a great deal of

respect for the chair that I occupy. I may have certain strong opinions but I try to temper them when I stand in this place.

I have a great deal of difficulty after seven years here to look across in this place and hear people put things on the record that may incite, maybe not by design, but may add to a lack of understanding and a lack of conciliation among all Canadians and may take away from the desire of Canadians to be fair and reasonable.

The hon. member opposite who spoke before me indicated that this law means that we are going to see colour, that we are going to have to look for colour, we are going to have to look for language, we are going to have to look for gender and that in the past that was not the case. Unfortunately he might have been right. In the past nobody saw colour when he hired because he did not hire people of colour. Nobody saw gender when he hired because in many cases he did not hire women. Nobody saw linguistic groups because in the past he did not hire linguistic groups.

I look forward to the day when we do not have to worry about those factors. The reality is the problems are caused by the fact that those factors have been overlooked in the past. The only way we can rectify it is by public policy. This bill goes in that direction and I support it fully.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last speaker and it sounds as if he has a valid concern. However, it seems to me that the legislation he is addressing is discriminatory and the government is trying to resolve that with a concept called employment equity.

I could be corrected on this, but I believe it was last year when we had recognition of women's day in the House, a women Liberal MP suggested that the House had a long way to go because over 51 per cent of the voters in the country are women but only 18 per cent of MPs are women. Where lies the problem? Women have the vote. Women have the intelligence to vote.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Could I answer this?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

People have the right to run as candidates. A number of women ran for election and were not elected. I ran against two women in my riding. People have the choice to make that selection. Women have the vote the same as men and they make a choice.

The air traffic control system started talking about affirmative action because there were not enough women air traffic controllers. At the time I happened to work with a very competent female air traffic controller who was asked to participate in the affirmative action program to get more women into the air traffic control system. She agreed that she would take part in a program to attract more women to apply and to learn about the system. But nobody in the system, male or female, was prepared to alter the practices so that a woman who was less qualified than a male candidate would be chosen.

Would the hon. member see a system where for the sake of balancing quotas, and there is no other way to put it, that the system has to take someone other than best qualified candidate because there is an imbalance in the precious quota system?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I believe it is a legitimate one.

I want to make two distinctions right off the bat. This bill is not about quotas. I do not support a quota system. It is not the right way to go. What I do support is a legislative framework that tells employers in the federal section, crown corporations and federal government departments that there is a reality out there. There are many members who are still in denial about the reality of barriers to participation in the labour market. They are real.

This direction in legislation I hope would never say someone has to be hired who is not qualified for the job. That is not what it is about. It sets in process a conscious mechanism so that a business, department or crown corporation can make sure that if there are no natives employed but they are 22 per cent of the population, that there must be some barriers to participation somewhere. If the barrier is simply that no native has been hired, then by setting targets for the participation of native employees sends out a signal.

But no, I do not agree. I would not support a bill that tells an employer to hire someone who is not qualified for the position. The member knows as well as I do, if you are dealing with an entry level or mid-level position, many times the minimum qualification for the job does not mean the applicant has to be a rocket scientist but may require a grade 12 education, someone able to lift a box, punch a typewriter or a keyboard, or operate a furnace. I do not know.

This bill does not compel anybody to hire an individual based on gender or colour.

It compels the corporate sector within the federally regulated area and the federal government to ensure that where those inequities are identifiable they have conscious programs to try to encourage the participation of qualified minority candidates.

It does not do anything other than that and if the member thinks it does I feel sorry for him. I would ask for him to reread the legislation because I think he is off in a direction not consistent with the goals of the bill.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the member opposite says he does not believe in quotas he is quite sincere. It does not matter how it is

dressed up. If there is a numerical target that is a quota. It does not matter how it is dressed up, it is a quota.

I ask the member opposite to respond to two brief questions. In his comments earlier the hon. member said it was wrong that a woman should not be able to get a job because she was a woman. Is it also wrong that a man should not get a job because he is a man?

The Department of Justice in its employment equity guidebook uses an employment equity target with a table that specifies the following. It will recruit 2.2 per cent of aboriginal peoples with promotions at 1.1 per cent; 2 per cent of persons with disabilities with promotions at 2.8 per cent; 4.4 per cent of visible minorities with promotions at 2.7 per cent of the total staff. If these are not quotas, what are they?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the members opposite do not get. This is a very simple piece of legislation. There is a history to this legislation. It is an amendment to an existing act. I cannot recall anybody contacting my office in the last seven years and complaining that the federal government through the existing employment equity legislation was excluding anybody qualified from participating. I have not had that and I have a lot of public servants in my area.

There are many people who do not get a job and run out and say there was a black hired and they must have been hired because they were black. There are plenty of minorities, black, linguistic, there are many women who in the past have not been hired not because they were not qualified but simply because of who they were, because they were females, because they were black, because they were immigrants or because they spoke a different language as a mother tongue. That is the reality.

This is not about quotas. I do not support a quota system. However, I will not as a federal legislator shirk my responsibility to pilot policy for the public sector which we are responsible for to indicate that it appears there is a discrepancy in the hiring patterns and policies of many government departments.

Either one subscribes to the the fact that people of colour or women are unable to attain certain standards, which is why they are not hired, or one can encourage the setting of targets whereby the organization or the private sector company will examine whether its employees are reflective of the mix of the labour market it can draw from, and where it is not reflective to encourage that employer to set forth a plan to get participation by the labour market as close to the mix of the labour market by qualified candidates.

I do not agree with quotas but I do agree that we will get nowhere by going into denial and pretending there is equity in the workplace. There is not. This bill will help to establish that it is a priority for Canadians and for the government. I am proud to say I am a part of the government that has taken the initiative to put this back on the public agenda.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Due to a ministerial statement and responses earlier, Government Orders will conclude at 5.46 p.m., at which time we will proceed to private members' hour.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I look across the House it is interesting. I see more ties that bind us than divide us even on such a sensitive issue as employment equity, which we oppose.

The hon. member gave some very eloquent points on issues where we have a lot of commonality. We in this party deplore and oppose with every strand of our bodies discrimination against anybody. We would fight to a person against anybody who was committing these offences on our soil.

Therefore I find it amazing that the government wishes to put forth employment equity which by its very nature is discriminatory and against our charter of laws and freedoms.

The original ideals of employment equity, affirmative action of fairness, equity and a level playing are what we in this party are fighting for. That was the original intent. Unfortunately what has happened with employment equity is it is being distorted. It has been plasticized and distorted so it does not resemble its original.

Tragically employment equity now holds up that people will be advanced on jobs or acquire jobs on characteristics designed by the government to advance people. The characteristics have nothing to do with ability and merit but have everything to do with characteristics that have nothing to do with the important aspects of getting a job, merit and ability.

This in effect is discriminatory by its very nature because it is promoting people on non-objective criteria and it is also very harmful to the economy. It is also very insulting to the individual getting a job for characteristics that have nothing to do with their education, their ability or their merit. I do not think that was ever taken into consideration by the government.

I do not think the government has put itself into the shoes of those individuals getting jobs like that. Furthermore it causes divisions and discrimination within the workplace. That is not fair and it is not good for the soul of the country.

The logic of the new employment equity law is clearly a flagrant abuse of the charter of human rights and freedoms. If one looks at the charter one can argue quite persuasively that employment equity is discrimination and should be thrown out on that ground alone. In other areas of the world where employment equity has

been put forth such as California and in the province of Ontario, it has been thrown out. Why has it been thrown it? It does not work, it is discriminatory and it causes incredible social divisions within the populations it is supposed to help.

That is not what we want in Canada. We want a country in which everybody is treated equally, in which people advance on merit and in which people can look at each other face to face as equals with mutual respect and admiration.

We do not want Canada to uphold policies that are divisive and which pit groups of people against each other. That has gone on for far too long. I challenge people in the government to go into the streets and ask people in the workforce about this. Tragically that is what has happened. We should not have that in such a beautiful country as ours, a country that has historically done an admirable job of merging so many ethnic groups in a peaceful environment. That is something all Canadians need to be proud of because very few countries enjoy that.

Employment equity also seeks to promote quotas. No matter what members of the government say on the other side, employment equity means quotas. It means numbers. Any employer will say that is what they are obligated to do.

The unfortunate thing that employment equity brings forth is the whole aspect of work for equal value. It is an artificial designation that tries to have the government determine what kind of work should be paid for equally with another disparate work. What kind of work is supposedly of equal value in an economy? The only legitimate place to decide what work should be paid for and its value is in a free market economy. That cannot be designated by government power. It must be decided in a free market economy. Anything less is extremely destructive.

Governments must argue for laws which are anti-discriminatory. The debate which took place a few moments ago involved my colleague and a member of the government. What struck me as very interesting was that they were both arguing the same point. They both want laws which are anti-discriminatory and feel the government's role is to ensure those laws are on the books and that they are applied.

The second role of government is to apply equal opportunity. It is imperative, particularly for those most dispossessed in our society, to have equal opportunity. That is one of the failings we see. Many people who are in the lower socioeconomic strata do not have that opportunity. It is important we create that opportunity so they can become the best they can become. That is the legitimate role of government. We in this party would strive very strongly for that and we would help government members to put forth strong plans and strong legislation to create the greatest opportunities for people.

The other aspect is to create fairness. It does not matter whether a person is black, brown, polka dotted, aboriginal, male, female, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. What matters is that the laws and the opportunities to get jobs are applied equally.

The hon. member brought up the point of people applying for a job and being discriminated against. We completely agree. We are arm in arm with enforcing those laws so that when a person applies for a job they are treated on their ability and their merit.

The other role of government is to create skills. Tragically we saw that money was pulled away from post-secondary education very recently. We understand very clearly the situation all governments across the country are in with fiscal problems. There is a way around that. We can cut from the federal budget but give the provinces the ability to raise the moneys themselves for education. We cannot build a strong economy and provide individuals with the skills necessary for them to get jobs in the 21st century if we cannot make educational opportunities available to them.

The single most important determining factor in getting a job is post-secondary education. It is important for us to support the post-secondary educational facilities so they understand what the needs of the economy will be in the future. We must provide them the ability to communicate those economic needs to the students, particularly when they are in high school, so they can plan for the future.

I hope we do not pursue employment equity. It has been a failure in other parts of the world. It is discriminatory. It is a tragic example of Orwellian social engineering, a type of social engineering we do not need.

We are very sensitive to the needs of the disadvantaged. The hon. member mentioned the plight of the aboriginals. I have worked with many aboriginals under the most tragic and harrowing circumstances. It breaks my heart to see what they have to endure. It is very important for us to understand that historically we have created an institutionalized welfare state in which the souls of these people have been broken. It is important for us to address their needs in a sensitive fashion and to provide them the skills and opportunities to enable them to take off the yolk of poverty and discrimination which they have endured for so long.

However, it is not the job of government to push people into jobs based on their characteristics. I hope the government will take this to heart. I hope the minister of aboriginal affairs will engage in activities which will help these people help themselves. I hope we can create a country that is free of prejudice and full of opportunity, that makes sure that Canadians are treated equally and we can look

at each other face to face as equals in an environment of peace and harmony.

I know we in this party would like to stand together with all members in this House to ensure that legislation is effected to enable all Canadians to live in that environment.