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.