Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested that the governing party is so persistently raising the question of the majority of testimonials its bill has received in committee. This sounds more like an admission. These witnesses are supposed to be more or less balanced. Members have been saying they padded their witness list, which we knew, but it is very interesting to hear it brought out in the House and emphasized in that way.
This pedigreed Heinz 57 Canadian looks somewhat askance at Bill C-64. It has its origin in the noblesse oblige of middle class, predominantly lily white Canadians who know what is best for everybody.
It certainly does not fit the viewpoint of some notable Canadians like Neil Bissoondath or Dr. Rais Khan or some not so new Canadians like Sammy Chung. It seems to fit the viewpoint of the Liberal government and too many people from any other part of society. It is condescending, patronizing and infers people in designated groups have less merit than non-designated persons and therefore cannot make it on their own. That is reprehensible.
I have two questions for the hon. member. Did she in private life and does she here now in her own office consciously practise employment equity? Does she accept what appears to be the standard Liberal philosophy that the best government is that which interferes most in the lives of ordinary Canadians?