moved:
That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual, case by case basis.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your reading that through to its very logical conclusion. I appreciate the way you put the emphasis on the right spots and so on. It was well read.
Employment equity is really the last gasp effort of an old government style brought forward from the 1960s and 1970s that says governments need to be involved in every little aspect of Canadian life.
When one finds an area in which the government is not involved it seems this government is still hanging on to the residual of an idea that perhaps what we should do is interfere wherever we can in the marketplace, in people's lives, in intrusive legislation; employment equity probably being the last serious effort to intrude in corporate and individual lives from coast to coast.
Employment equity is a road paved with good intentions. It is an idea that perhaps by enforcing certain racial goals, numerical goals and targets on employment hiring practices we can somehow make Canada more discrimination free and that we will all live in the utopia the Liberals would have us believe is just around the bend.
Employment equity and affirmative action have fallen on hard times lately around the world. Employment equity is being challenged and being defeated in the United States courts, including the Supreme Court, one case after another.
There is a proposition in California that will banish affirmative action plans from its law books probably within the year. In Canada, however, instead of following the lead of around the world which is to get away from social manipulation, for some reason the government has decided to expand the employment equity program.
It has brought in Bill C-64 which will expand it to include not only people regulated by the federal government but the entire public service, the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS and so on. It is a very intrusive bill. It smacks of social engineering of the worst kind. In the bottom line, it is very discriminatory and that is why the Reform Party opposes it.
In the last week I clipped two or three pieces from a newspaper. I am wondering whether we are in tune with the Canadian people; are we reflecting the things that concern them? Recent opinion polls say that 74 per cent of Canadians oppose employment equity in Canada. In my province of British Columbia, 81 per cent oppose employment equity. The government, instead of retrenching and rethinking this idea, has decided at this time to expand it.
What are the newspapers saying lately? Is it on people's minds? It certainly is on people's minds in Ontario where there is a provincial election going on. The Globe and Mail , hardly a radical paper, in talking about Mr. Harris says he will do away with the employment equity program if given a chance as the premier of Ontario.
The paper asked: "Is it radical to propose that Canada's only quota base affirmative action program", meaning the employment equity program, "which effectively requires discrimination in employment against white males be dropped along with the requirement to track employees by race, sex and disability?" No, the Globe and Mail says that is not radical at all, that it only makes common sense.
A May 27 article from the Globe and Mail says employment equity is no way to run a railroad or a newspaper. I might add that it is no way to run a country.
The article goes through the litany of problems with the employment equity program, everything from how expensive it is to how it is discriminatory, intrusive and gives a lot of power of invasion. It is so intrusive in Ontario it had to be exempt from the Ontario human rights act because one cannot be in compliance with the human rights act at the same time as one is forcing employment equity. That is how discriminatory it is.
Also interesting is the way much of this argument rests on a few words. The government says numerical goals are really not coercive and that numerical targets are not really quotas. The government says not to worry, it has numerical goals; they are not quotas, don't worry, be happy.
It is interesting because that is not according to what all Liberals say. The federal and provincial wings of the Liberal Party are divided. We saw a senior federal Liberal saying a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. We have had numerous statements in the House from federal Liberals endorsing the provincial Liberal program of Lyn McLeod. What did Lyn McLeod say about employment equity?