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.