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.