Debates of May 30th, 1995

Supply

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, some of the comments are indeed condescending. I would like to get back to some of the more practical aspects of what we are talking about in employment equity today. I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that I am dividing my time with my hon. colleague.

I would like to begin by quoting Booker T. Washington who said: "I have always been made sad when I have heard members of any race claiming rights and privileges or certain badges of distinction on the grounds simply that they were members of

this or that race, regardless of their individual worth or attainments". I suppose that says a great deal to what this debate is all about.

I have always struggled with the employment equity situation in terms of whether or not it is right or wrong or how it is applied. I think to a great degree we are trying to accomplish fairness and equality in the country regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. I am not entirely satisfied that we can legislate equality and attitudes or legislate how best to achieve the results of a fair and caring society.

We get into all kinds of issues with employment equity. I want to relate two. First, in my past life I happened to be the chief executive officer of operations for a fairly large organization, a school district of some 1,500 employees. I often wondered how we could legislate hiring equity with 1,500 employees. If we look at the area I come from, there is a very large number of Indo-Canadian people.

If we were to take that ratio and a ratio of male-female which is probably around 50:50, I wonder how that kind of equity would be applied to the organization I ran. Within that organization a large number of employees were female and I would suggest that they were white and of younger ages.

To turn around and apply employment equity ratios, numerical goals or quotas which are one and the same, to that organization, I do not believe would practically work. The ratio has to be applied back at the universities, in the bachelor of education courses taught at university. Then that ratio would have to be applied back at the high school level, to the graduates for acceptance into university.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

That is what they do in the states.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

As my colleague says, that is what they do in some states, and it does not work practically.

What has to be done when bringing people into organizations like the one I managed is to bring them in as they were on the basis of the career they chose a long time ago, based on their ability to pass courses, on their personal desire to teach young people and so on and so forth. To legislate employment equity in an organization like that would be near impossible. It just does not work.

People from all over the world reside in my community. Many businesses and companies I have visited even recently have almost exclusively been owned and operated by people from Laos, Cambodia and other countries. We could look at that and say if we want to enforce or legislate numerical goals or quotas, it could actually work in the reverse. There are some people missing out of here from the community so let us go back and change all of the ratios. That is not practical.

I do note from the community I live in that I do not see the bias we are talking about here from the Liberal ranks. I do not see the necessity of having that quota, that numerical goal. I am sure people in my community would be quite opposed to the thought that might happen.

A number of times we have heard Liberal members talk about numerical goals. They say that numerical goals in employment equity are not quotas, that they are something else. We just pick a number and say this many people have to be hired.

If we look at something like the supply management system in this country, we should say that there are no quotas in supply management, just numerical goals. I do not think the folks across the way really know what the heck they are talking about when they talk about numerical goals and quotas. They are legislating something here that the rest of Canada is going to have to live with for a long time. They are making a very grave mistake.

We only have to look as far as the official bilingualism program to see what they are trying to legislate. They tried to legislate a country into an attitude that everything shall be equal. In fact, they would hire a number of investigators to ensure that the official bilingualism policy would be fulfilled and put into place. If not, there would be penalties.

That is exactly what the Liberals are talking about here. They are talking about a large number of people within a department to make darn good and sure that employment equity is put in place. If it is not put in place, maybe they should be given a fine.

My experience is that we cannot legislate attitudes. One cannot legislate that which people will not do. What we have to do in this country is make fair and reasonable application to all people. We must have a country where all people are equal, regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. That is what has to be done and we have to have it up here. We do not legislate or mandate it.

I am reminded of two young fellows who came into my office not long ago holding a piece of paper. It was an application for a scholarship from a very large company in British Columbia. It had to do with scholarships for pre-apprentice electricians. What these young fellows were concerned about was that it was only available to aboriginal people, visible minorities, the special needy and women. I had to explain to them that my feeling was the company was trying to increase its employment equity. They did not understand that. They truly did not. They thought things were based on abilities, skills, work experience and so on.

Once the bill goes through and we have more employment equity rules and regulations, I am not sure how we can explain that to them. I sincerely hope the Liberal government will have an answer because the people do not understand. It is not as easy as chalking it off, as the Liberals would say, to a bunch of dumb Reformers. That is not the case. We should get off that kind of rhetoric. I think Liberals have some explaining to do as to how the legislation will really work.

There are a lot of examples in society in which governments get too far involved in what they think is right and they legislate it, which is exactly where this government is going. I often comment in the House about the arrogance of a party much resembling the arrogance of the Conservative Party when it held a large majority. I would caution the government very closely that it not get carried away with its arrogance in its legislation. It should look at the employment equity legislation and consider that all Canadians today consider themselves equal, regardless of race, colour, creed or religion. Do not try to legislate it. Put it in your hearts and in your minds.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I noted in my colleague's speech that he made the comment that it is impossible to legislate attitude. I found it rather instructive that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was on her feet speaking today she made exactly the same comment: it is impossible to legislate attitude.

I cannot help but wonder why it is that the Liberals have difficulty understanding that they cannot legislate attitude when the parliamentary secretary says it and it is obviously agreed to by my colleague from Fraser Valley West. In fact, they are getting involved in social engineering to try to redress a situation by way of legislation when 80 per cent of the people in the coffee shops across Canada say they do not want any part of it.

The problem I am having is when I raised the question with members opposite, asking them to explain why the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party says that goals are the same thing as quotas, I have not yet had one explanation from the other side as to why there seems to be such a discrepancy in this never-never land that these people in Ottawa are in, bringing forward legislation that 80 per cent of Canadians do not want. They do not seem to understand.

I wonder if my colleague could help me understand why the Liberals in Ottawa seem to be so grossly out of touch with reality and certainly out of touch with the attitude of the majority of Canadians on this issue.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, this was not a loaded question at all.

I think most people who come here from all regions of the country understand that there is a certain amount of being out of touch with Canadian reality in Ottawa. I think it prevails where there is a majority government, which is less and less in touch with the people. The reason for that is that for five years those in power do not have to work as hard as the party in opposition to get things accomplished. They come into the House and say "this is what Canadians want, because they elected us, and this is what we are darned well going to give them". There is a certain amount of hypocrisy and arrogance in what we see in the legislation passing through this House.

I do not think for a moment that what these folks are trying to push off onto the rest of Canada, and which we are going to have to live with for the rest of our lives or until they are removed from office, is representative of what many people in this country are seeing. What we have here again is an attempt to legislate what people will be given not necessarily what people want.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I listened to what the hon. member had to say and, like the rest of us, was also invited by the member for Fraser Valley East to cross the Rockies and visit the rest of the country. I must tell him that I have already done so.

I would like to return the favour and invite the Reform member to visit my fair province, Quebec. I found the hon. member's statement a little irresponsible.

We are speaking of employment equity. The member refers to employment equity and brings biculturalism and bilingualism into the debate.

I would like to put him on the defensive. The proof is in Quebec, where being bilingual gives more job opportunities. With the emerging economy today and with North American free trade there are now schools in Quebec offering Spanish as a third or fourth language. So how can he bring that into the debate and say that he is against bilingualism when he is for employment equity and opportunities for all people, especially the youth of today? It is ironic.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member totally misunderstood what I was talking about. The fact is I mentioned the bilingualism issue not as an issue that fits in with employment equity but as an example of how the government challenges the strength of the Canadian fabric by issuing law to its people when it gets a majority government. They have totally misunderstood what I was talking about.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry but the time has more than expired.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, employment equity is discriminatory. It is also

illegal. Subsection 12(3) of the Public Service Employment Act states: "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and colour".

Employment equity seeks to institutionalize what we seek to avoid. We seek to avoid discrimination, but instead it brings it right into the workplace. It tells a minority group: "You cannot compete on the basis of merit. Therefore, we in the government are going to create opportunities for you to advance on the basis of your demographics and not on the basis of merit." It makes an issue of gender and it makes an issue of race and geographic location when none ought to exist. In fact when we speak to minority groups we find it is an insult to them.

The purpose we have in this country is to give minority groups and disadvantaged groups the opportunity to become the best they can become. This legislation tries to enable them to have a fair share of jobs, a fair share based on numbers.

We have had this discussion in the House. The government says it is in favour of numerical goals, not quotas. Quotas and numerical goals are synonymous. There is no difference. As I said before, it is discriminatory. All we need to do is look at the fine institution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see that white males need not apply.

What we want to have in this country is equal opportunity. We must have a country in which everybody has an equal chance to become the best they can be, to employ the talents, the drive and the initiative they have in their hearts to do whatever they can. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has enabled us to do that.

If someone chooses not to do this of their own will, if they choose not to take the opportunities that are provided for them, then it is not the government's role to do this through other means. That is where we have a significant departure in logic and understanding. We feel it is not the government's role to go out and push people when they do not have the initiative, push people to get skills for something they choose not to do. We are in favour of providing everyone in this country with the opportunity to get those skills.

Many people came to this country as immigrants, including myself. We came to get away from countries where preferential policies existed. The idea of preferential treatment, being treated unequally, has occurred in many countries. People have left that to come to our fair shores. In fact the idea of treating people equally on the basis of merit is something that is new and it is something we should all try to strive for.

Some view employment equity as a way of decreasing discrimination but in fact the opposite is true. Employment equity increases discrimination causes animosities, plays up differences and creates resentment.

Madam Speaker, imagine if you will if you were going to apply for a job and people said that you would not get this job on the basis of your merit, but because you are a woman or a minority group or an aboriginal person you are going to get this job. Imagine what that would say to you and your feelings about your own credibility. It is, as I said before, an insult.

I would just like to say to minority groups-and I am a mixture of many different minority groups-that we cannot legislate against people's prejudices. If people call you derogatory names, that is their problem, not yours. However, we must ensure that those prejudices do not interfere with a person's ability to get a job and function in society.

We must look at real life examples too with employment equity. Why is this government pushing employment equity when California, a state of numerous ethnic groups, ethnically heterogeneous as it can be, is throwing it out? They have found it is costly and ineffective.

We have 11 programs in this country that are sanctioned by the Treasury Board. They are called special measures initiatives. Between 1985 and 1988 they cost between $11 million and $15 million per year. In 1992 the pass rate for women was 63 per cent and visible minorities 79 per cent. This year the pass rate is 30 per cent for women and 52 per cent for minorities. It is a failure and it is costly. Why do we continue to pursue this endeavour which has proven not to work?

I have heard this government claim it is against discrimination and it is for justice and caring. Employment equity does not do this. It does the exact opposite. It also does that at the expense of what should be the primary guiding role in getting a job, and that is merit. It also does this at the expense of minority groups, as I said before, and it is insulting to them. When we speak to the rank and file of Canadians who are of minority groups in this country, they all say that they do not want employment equity. They want to be treated fairly, equally and without discrimination.

The leaders of minority groups often take a different role, but their role is the role of politics not necessarily the role of fairness. I would listen to the silent minority not to the verbose leaders of some groups who do not necessarily represent the people they are supposed to represent.

Let us look at the facts. As government members have said, there is no difference between minority groups and non-minority groups. We need to work toward everybody with the same qualifications being paid the same amount of money for doing the same job. These are the rules we have in the country and

these are the rules we need to strongly support. The Reform Party is vehemently in favour of these rules.

There are differences between employment statistics and the types of jobs of various minority groups. As I asked before, is this the fault of discrimination or is this the fault of differences in qualifications and societal determinants? We have laws and regulations with respect to qualifications in Canada. A qualification from another country may not be recognized in this country in the same way. That is not unfair. A doctorate or a bachelor of science or a trade from another country may not have the same merit as the same program here regardless of whether or not it involves a minority group. We ought to keep that in mind.

I would like to give an example of drive. Recently I was on an aboriginal reserve wracked with a lot of tragedies: high suicide rate, high unemployment rate and depression. However, when these people were asked to do the simplest things for themselves they continually put forth that they wanted us to do it for them. I asked them to teach their own children some of their history and culture which they were capable of doing, but they chose not to do it. They wanted somebody else to do it for them. By doing things for themselves and by taking the initiative they could build pride and self-respect, which would go a long way to decreasing the societal duress in many of these groups.

We in the Reform Party are vehemently opposed to discrimination. We believe in creating a strong, level playing field for all people regardless of their colour, race or gender. We want to create laws, have laws and enforce laws that are anti-discriminatory. Discrimination is a cancer within our midst that needs to be stepped on wherever it is found. We need to build bridges between people. We need to cherish our differences. We need to learn from each other. We are very lucky in Canada to have over 165 different ethnic groups. What a joy and a privilege for all of us to learn from other people and other cultures in a safe environment.

I am glad we are a lot like the United States. I am glad we are not like many of the other countries in the world that do not enjoy the freedoms we have. However we fight against employment equity because it flies in the face of fairness and equality. It separates people rather than bring them together.

Canada is a model at bringing people together. I ask the government to reconsider its role and views on employment equity and to reconsider the idea that it is not up to government to elevate people to a standard they are not capable of achieving or choosing to do themselves. It is the role of the government to enable people to have an equal playing field free of discrimination.

We do not live in a perfect society, but we must continue to work toward a fair and equitable society with peace and fairness for all.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make after listening to the member.

I found it very ironic, if I may say so, because often we hear from the Reform Party how it compares Canada to the United States. In the member's presentation he compared us to California and the United States. Not too long ago the leader of the Reform Party visited Mr. Gingrich of the United States, at which point he said: "We don't do things the way you do in the United States". Yet all of a sudden they want to compare us to California.

I want to go beyond that point because it seems to me they want to suck and blow at the same time.

I refer to an article about Reform in the House that states: "Reformers cast themselves as the official opposition but they have a few flaws". I believe the flaws keep flopping back and forth.

In my private life I came from the employment industry. I would like to give a specific example of some problems that had to be overcome. A major retailer wanted to hire a computer operator. In that area there were rotating shifts, sometimes eight-hour shifts, sometimes twelve-hour shifts three days consecutively or five days a week.

The employer indicated to my firm that he was adamant he did not want to hire a female simply because there were rotating shifts. Somehow or some way we convinced the employer to hire a female. I am proud to say today, six years down the road, the female is still with the company. She has been promoted three times and is doing an excellent job. What would have happened if the placement agency decided to listen to the employer and be swayed by him that because she was a female she could not work shift work?

I am proud to say the legislation will open avenues, allowing people to go ahead, move forward and compete for jobs equally. I believe employers will hire based on merit, not just on the fact that someone is oriental, black, male or female.

I encourage the party across the way to stop posturing and being intellectually dishonest with the people of Canada. Reformers cannot have it both ways. They either compare us to the United States or they do not. They cannot keep flip-flopping.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, employment equity is about hiring people on the basis of colour, gender and other demographic characteristics.

Who cares if one is female or male, black or white, brown or polka-dotted? We do not. We only want to make sure that when

people go for jobs they are treated on the basis of merit. That is all that counts in getting a job. That is all we care about other than providing and ensuring there are laws against discrimination.

Regarding what I said about the United States, California has employment equity laws. We do not want them. I point out to the hon. member that we should learn from the mistake they made in the United States. They are trying to rectify it. We should learn from their enforcement of employment equity in California that it did not work. Let us learn from them. We should show Americans that we are different from them and better than them by not partaking in it.

Our goals are the same. In some ways the goals of the government and the Reform Party with respect to the overarching theory are the same. We do not want discrimination. We are vehemently opposed to discrimination on any ground.

The flaw in the government is that employment equity engenders discrimination. By its very nature it is saying that one group of people cannot compete on the basis of merit and should be elevated over another group. That is discrimination against the other group. That is unfair. We cannot right the wrongs of historical injustice by creating discriminatory laws now. We cannot right the wrongs of the past by tipping the scales in favour or against a group.

We must create a level playing field, treat people on the basis of merit and have anti-discriminatory laws to create a country of which we can all be proud.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party put forward today the following motion:

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.

I come from a family farm in rural Saskatchewan. Whenever work was available it did not matter much what one's gender or colour was. My sister was involved in the work on the farm. It did not matter what task was at hand. She was able to do it as ably as anyone else on the farm. We are proud of her abilities to tackle any task at hand.

It is with that approach we should be looking at employment opportunities. We should be looking at the skills of the applicants rather than at the colour of their skin, their gender or some other distinguishing mark or blemish, if one would be so bold as to use that word.

It gives me pleasure today to speak on the issue of employment equity or what I would rather call preferential hiring or affirmative action, a concept that is failing around the world wherever it has been tried. The specific area I should like to address is the government's definition of equality. Equality has been loosely defined as equality of numerical representation in the workforce.

For example, if 5 per cent of our available workforce is made up of visible minorities each employer's workforce should reflect the 5 per cent. In order for the government to move toward equality of numerical representation, it must obtain an accurate statistical base showing the representation of designated groups.

However, accuracy of statistical base depends on self-identification and here we have a huge problem. The government has stressed that self-identification is the backbone of the employment equity program. There are a number of problems, however, with the self-identification process.

The Stentor group, testifying before the human rights committee, stated that employee data collected by means of the self-identification process was unreliable. Many employees are reluctant to participate in the self-identification process because often there is a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of fellow workers. Most individuals would rather have their promotions and benefits based on merit than on gender or race.

I will use an example that is very close to home. The Clerk of the House of Commons appeared before the committee on April 27 and stated that a voluntary self-identification survey was sent to 1,700 House of Commons employees. Shockingly, only 23 per cent of the employees returned the survey. Of that number less than 50 identified themselves as belonging to a designated group. From these numbers it would be next to impossible to implement an accurate employment equity plan.

It does not work. It does not work on the Hill. How will it work across the country? Yet the Liberals are committed to employment equity. They think they can legislate it. They are absolutely wrong.

Difficulties also arise in determining who should belong to the designated groups. For instance, should a person of mixed parentage be counted as a visible minority? Why? Why not? Should a third generation visible minority Canadian be thought of as disadvantaged as a new citizen from the third world? Why? Why not? These questions need to be addressed by the government.

There are also problems in defining what constitutes a disability. If I were to wear glasses I would be considered disabled. It is ridiculous. This list goes on and on. It shows how complicated and interwoven the problems surrounding the whole employment equity affirmative action programs become. Yet the Liberals in their red book are committed to this terrible policy, this impossibility.

Another concern is with regard to intrusive behaviour in the identification process to know who are the minorities. To get the statistics surveys have to be done, which means employers and employees have to comply. Yet the right of individuals to refuse

self-identification is an important privacy right. The boundaries of consent to self-identify are already being blurred.

In March 1995 the Department of National Defence issued a diversity questionnaire to all employees. The first section was compulsory, requiring personal information such as name and address. It was pretty basic stuff. The second self-identification section was voluntary. By requiring partial information the department obtained knowledge of all those who refused to self-identify. It is a serious problem. It is an invasion of a person's privacy.

They already know now who refuses to identify themselves as being in a visible minority, a group that might qualify for special assistance under any kind of equity employment program. It is intrusive. It is wrong. It is a violation of some basic rights as Canadians. Some members of designated groups can now be approached by the national defence managers and be pressured to respond or asked to agree to be identified under the authority of section 17(3) of the proposed Liberal legislation, Bill C-64, where only those employees who agree to be identified are to be counted.

Employers can use a variety of informal methods and pressure to persuade employees to give consent for self-identification. To make any part of a self-identification questionnaire compulsive is coercive. The use of personal information for anything other than department wide statistics should be unacceptable. Any that are made necessary by requirement are inherently wrong and are another weakness of employment equity.

The government is saying that if a person is a visible minority there is a greater likelihood that person will be disadvantaged. I do not accept that. I think that is wrong. Why should certain visible minority groups which earn some of the top incomes in the country qualify for employment action programs? It does not make sense when others who are not visible minorities are passed over.

I would like to give the House an example of how ludicrous the whole concept of employment equity, gender equity or race based equity can become. A law program at a university in the province of Ontario undertook what it called an equal opportunity approach to education. Essentially it was trying to get a certain number of visible minorities into the law profession, which is an admirable goal. However, what it did was not so admirable. On the law school application was a question whether the applicant was a visible minority. I am not too certain why being a visible minority would make someone a better candidate for law school. I do not understand why that would be the case.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. The students in the law school are segregated during exams between those who are visible minorities and those who are not visible minorities. Those individuals who are visible minorities are given eight hours to write exams, while those who are not visible minorities are given four hours. In addition, visible minorities are given special access to tutors that is not available to other students. To make matters worse, those who were not visible minorities were kept in the dark about the university's policies.

The type of approach taken by the university is doing visible minorities a disservice. Can you imagine getting a law degree from that university and it becoming common knowledge that you had twice the time to write the exam or that you were given special tutoring? I am sure the demand for those students would be half as great as for those who followed the regular course. Employment equity or equal opportunity, when it becomes based on gender, race or some other distinguishing mark of a visible minority, it is ludicrous and ridiculous.

It is insulting to visible minorities that the only reason they are in law school or they are hired is because of their skin colour, their gender or any reason other than their ability and their merit. Instead they should be given the message that they are qualified to be there, that they have skills, intellect and the determination to get the job done, whether it be to get a law degree or to get a job.

In conclusion, I would like to talk a bit about something which is important to me, results. In the last election a bunch of nonsense went around that somehow the Reform Party was male dominated and that the party was only interested in the male segment of the Canadian population. Actually the statistics do not bear that out.

It is very interesting to find out that of our candidates, the female candidates had a higher success ratio than the male candidates. We had no equity program. We did not demand that half of our candidates be female. Maybe if we had we would have had twice as many members here.

We left the choice of the selection of candidates up to the local constituencies, which looked for the best person for the job. They did not look at the colour of their skin or their gender. They looked at their ability to represent their constituents. They looked at their ability to come to this place to try to change it. We were more successful at electing women candidates than we were male candidates. A lot of Canadians do not know that because they have been given misinformation by the Liberals and by others who have a vested interest in the whole issue.

As employers, let us choose people based on merit. As government, let us promote a policy that will let people succeed because they deserve to, not because they are pampered on some unreasonable grounds that forms the basis for employment equity programs.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, if ever there was a better example of government doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons in employment equity, I do not know of it. If ever there was an example of government making a bad decision worse in its attempt to make it better, I do not know of one.

Today in our universities students who take economics classes study the example of rent control, for instance, to learn how government can make a problem worse by adding what appears to be simple tools to make it better. With rent control government tried to make housing more affordable by imposing rent increase restrictions on those nasty landlords that, in government's opinion, wanted to take the shirts off the backs of their tenants. Unfortunately, as history and economics have shown again and again, it simply does not work.

Instead of rent control creating more affordable housing it creates less. By imposing rent restrictions the government takes the incentive away from developers to build new homes, thus limiting the number of homes on the market and ensuring that the under class never gets affordable housing.

Are there no benefits from rent control? Sure there are. The wealthy and the upper middle class people who have secured an apartment are guaranteed artificially low prices for their homes. Who benefits? The middle and upper classes. Who pays? Business and lower classes. It is a prime example of what happens when government creates a system to help one sector of society at the expense of another. It does not work. The market takes over and makes its own decisions that more often than not fly in the face of the good intentions of government.

I am convinced that a couple of decades from now students studying economics will no longer be examining rent control examples. They will be studying employment equity because employment equity as well as being fundamentally unjust, fundamentally unfair and fundamentally discriminatory, does not work. That is what the classes will be centred on.

Some will benefit: principally lawyers, the middle class minorities and women who are artificially moved ahead in the market by employment equity. But not the lower classes, not immigrants, not those the program is supposed to help. By placing artificial restrictions on hiring practices, by placing quotas on institutions that hire people, government limits the productivity of those organizations. Government makes them less productive and less productive organizations hire less people and fire more.

The first to be let go will always be those with the fewest skills, those who have spent the least time in the market or part time workers. Those people are disproportionately members of the very group that employment equity is supposed to benefit.

It is a classic example of government not working. It is a classic lesson for government. However this government, like its ideological cousins in the NDP, do not get it. It has been too blinded by rhetoric to understand reality and too influenced by special interests.

Employment equity is a failure. It does not do what it is intended to do. While attempting through employment equity to cure some alleged wrongs of the past, as a society we have sold our souls. We have made a pact with the devil. We have abandoned the principles of fairness, justice and equality.

Liberals used to love George Orwell's Animal Farm . They would cite the slogan: All are created equal but some are more equal than others'' with a bit of glee, thinking this was a criticism of the politics of the so-called establishment and that they were above such satire. Well, no more. Employment equity is the embodiment of the slogan:All are equal but some are more equal than others''.

That slogan does not make sense of course. It is illogical and so is employment equity. However it does not stop special interests from demanding more employment equity. I say special interests because there is no question that special interests are at work in the debate. When there is no empirical evidence of a white male cabal actively discriminating against more than half of the population and when the majority of Canadians oppose employment equity, what can we conclude except that special interests once again have the ear of the party across the way? Only special interests could force the promotion of a policy that is so illogical and so unfair.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is fond of citing statistics, with which we agree, saying that immigrants to Canada outperform native born Canadians in the workforce. The minister attempts to take credit for the fact that immigrants tend to be very hard working and self-reliant.

At the same time employment equity in the public service discriminates against men and white Canadians and discriminates in favour of minorities, many of whom are immigrants. Even though immigrants are outperforming native born Canadians, native born Canadians are punished by employment equity because immigrants are presumed to be disadvantaged.

No other bit of data shows the absolute folly of employment equity like the data on performance of immigrants. Look at the performance in the economy of recently arrived immigrants from Asia. These immigrants are new to the country. They often face difficulties with language. They are typecast as ethnic minorities. Yet they do better than the white males that are alleged to be discriminating against them and thereby are allowed to receive an undue and unfair benefit from employ-

ment equity programs. Does this make sense? Is this justifiable by anyone with a grain of common sense? Of course not.

Special interests are tickled about the state of affairs because special interests do not care about justice. They do not care about facts. They do not care about the national interest. They care only about their interests and they have the ear of the government.

The Reform Party has faced labelling. It has had to shield itself against rhetorical attacks unlike any ever faced by a major political party in Canada. Among those attacks have been the cry of racism, despite the fact that the Reform Party is the only party that has on its books a totally colour blind immigration policy.

We want Canada to accept immigrants on the basis of their ability to contribute to Canada and fill needs in the workforce. Imagine what would happen if the Reform Party changed that colour blind immigration policy. Imagine if ethnic fairness was our goal. Here is what would happen. The majority of immigrants coming to Canada are typecast as visible minorities. Using the logic of fans of employment equity that could only mean that there is a systematic institutional discrimination against non-visible minorities in the immigration system.

Again using the illogic of the employment equity program it would be fair, proper and just to establish quotas for immigration to Canada of more white Europeans. Imagine the backlash that would occur if that program were instituted, despite the fact that this hypothetical scenario would be based entirely on the exact same logic that the proponents of employment equity use.

Discrimination occurs in many quarters. It occurs against young men who have good grades but still cannot get into university or get a scholarship. It occurs in increased ethnic and racial awareness as government forces everyone to declare themselves a member of a racial group instead of just being Canadian. It occurs when there is job loss due to ridiculous demands placed on industries that do business with the government. It occurs as the stigma attached to minorities and women who are called "EE hires". The list goes on.

I urge the members of the House to think carefully. Do not toe the party line. Use your heads and think about the effect of this misguided policy. Think about the human costs. Think about the non-existent benefits. Then support our motion. Restore fairness, and stop discrimination of all kinds.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to the Reform Party's motion which I believe to be predicated on a lot of misinformation, half truths and generally misdirected with a great deal of pomposity. Some rather unfortunate ethnocentric views are being perpetrated on the basis of what is a very logical piece of legislation with very reasonable goals being set by the government to deal with overwhelming inequities that already exist.

I welcome this opportunity to clear up the confusion surrounding Bill C-64 created by some ill informed members of the opposition. I am anxious to explain how this made in Canada legislation will respond to the country's unique workplace needs to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

I have been told repeatedly by Canadians that communications and education are essential to the success of employment equity. It is within this context that I frame my comments today. I believe it is critical for Canadians to understand what Bill C-64 will and will not do. They should be fully aware that Canada is charting its own course with this progressive piece of legislation.

The suggestion has been made by some members of the Reform Party that the United States experience with affirmative action proves workplace equality is unworkable. It is not fair to compare apples with oranges. This is Canada and that is the United States.

In outlining the many merits of Canada's approach to employment equity I intend to demonstrate how, despite misleading comments to the contrary, in Canada we got the legislation right. Let me outline the key differences between the American's affirmative action approach and Canada's employment equity legislation.

With all due respect for our neighbours, the U.S. approach is characterized by a confusing and sometimes contradictory multitude of federal, state and municipal laws, policies and programs.

We also have to understand there is a great deal of competition for jobs. The pressure is great with two million jobs being lost annually in the U.S. As an example of how this pressure is generated in the U.S., look at the global picture and see where the pressure points are.

An article in the Utne Reader , the May-June 1995 issue, states: ``In the 1950s, 33 per cent of U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing. Today less than 17 per cent of the workforce is engaged in blue collar work. Management consultant Peter Drucker estimates that employment in manufacturing is going to continue dropping to less than 12 per cent of the workforce in the next decade. Although the number of blue collar workers continues to decline, manufacturing productivity is soaring''.

Another factor to consider is that changes have also been dramatic in the wholesale and retail sectors. There are pressures there and competitions for jobs. There are a lot of pressures on businesses, on government and on individuals. For instance, typical of the trend of retail giant Sears Roebuck, Sears eliminated a staggering 50,000 jobs from its merchandising division in 1993, reducing employment by 14 per cent.

Intelligent machines is also another issue invading professional disciplines, encroaching on education and the arts, long considered immune to the pressure of mechanization. A robot that will perform hip replacement surgery is being developed in California. Some firms now use computerized hiring systems to screen job applications. Not only are we competing with other humans, we are competing with robotics, new technologies and the mechanization of the workplace.

What do we do? Do we outlaw new and intelligent machines that will help to improve the economy and provide efficiency and effectiveness? With all of our discontent and malcontent we could devise laws and legislation that would discriminate against those and eliminate them, as is being suggested here.

Another interesting factor to consider because of the pressures being generated is that from 1983 to 1993 banks eliminated in the States 179,000 human tellers, 30 per cent of its workforce with automated teller machines.

This is a whole phenomenon far too complicated. I do not believe one can win the argument as the members of the opposition are proposing by taking a single, narrow example of how a university sets up a program or a course and use that to build a case against employment equity. That is very narrow and unjustified. It does not have much validity.

This profusion of legislation we talk about in the States gives rights, protections and remedies to different groups. Understandably this has created problems. Critics point to abuses and growing disenchantment with quotas in the U.S. which have led federal legislators to re-examine affirmative action.

By contrast, Canada has a streamlined legislative framework. Bill C-64 creates a single approach to employment equity at the federal level with clear responsibilities and duties assigned to employers and government agencies. With a few exceptions the approach to employment equity and the groups covered are essentially the same in most jurisdictions with mandatory employment equity in Canada.

Another crucial distinction is the role of the courts. Employment equity in Canada is proactive in nature. The legislation focuses on negotiated solutions arrived at through co-operative employer-employee relations. It does not require prior presumption of discrimination.

Consequently the Employment Equity Act creates an efficient and cost effective framework that minimizes the role of courts. We have a federal contractors program which a lot of regulated businesses participate in. It has become a state of mind. It is good business for those people to have women, visible minorities and disabled people working for them.

I have attended ceremonies at which we award federal contractors' awards. I have done that over the year and it has been very much applauded by the participants. They set an example many federally regulated businesses want to participate in. That includes universities as well as a variety of different private sector businesses.

The affirmative action program south of the border is rooted in executive order and civil rights law. Its objective is to eliminate discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. The U.S. approach is characterized by court ordered quotas, preferential treatment to minority owned companies for government contracts and tax incentives to encourage ownership by minority populations.

The American system is also adversarial and litigious, doing little to advance harmony at the work site. It is frequently criticized as a slow and expensive way of achieving equality in the workforce.

Under the Canadian approach to employment equity, employers set their own numerical targets, often reached through consultation with workers and their unions. Bill C-64 specifically prohibits the use of quotas and there are certainly no provisions for preferential treatment to minority owned companies.

It is also good news that the Reform Party elected quite a few women. It might not have been a bad idea to have elected more there. That is an aside and I am sure the Reform member across the way will agree with that.

Merit is still paramount. A vicious rumour is being perpetrated that meritorious applicants, meritorious individuals meritorious successful candidates under employment equity are being maligned as not capable, as having been selected because they are disabled, women or of a visible minority. That is not so. This legislation has merit as its foundation. That remains paramount.

The intent of the Employment Equity Act is not to provide preferential treatment; it is designed to ensure equal treatment of all qualified work ready Canadians regardless of race, physical attributes or gender. It is about removing not erecting barriers to employment. It is about creating equity not inequality and not preferential treatment. It is about improving a system so downtrodden with inequity.

If the Reform Party is willing to do the research it will know the employment figures year after year have on the bottom of the list the disabled, women, aboriginal people and visible minorities. The Reform Party can find a few examples where that is not the case but the government does not build good policy and good legislation on a few examples. The exception is not the rule. That is not the way good policy is developed. That is not the way democracy works best.

It is about removing inequities not erecting barriers to employment. Canada is very fortunate that its legal meaning of equality is unlike that of the U.S. Ours is based on a constitutional guarantee of equality far broader than the U.S. equivalent. In Canada every individual has the right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 15(2) recognizes special consideration and the accommodation of differences is sometimes necessary in achieving true equality.

Special treatment is not a departure from equality, it is essential in achieving it. Employment equity has come about because of the overwhelming inequities in the labour market, in all fields of employment. That is what it is based on.

It is unique to Canada. The U.S. constitution has no similar provision. In the United States there is a constitutional right to equal protection of the law only. Historically it has been interpreted by U.S. courts to require identical treatment, thus the development of colour blind and sex blind laws.

Members of Parliament who have participated in committees have learned by that valuable process. I have learned through the constitutional process that same treatment does not necessarily express equality. That is a simplistic view and a view which should have gone out with the dark ages. We are into futuristic and very straightforward issues and views about equality which apply to all Canadians.

Canada's approach to equality is progressive and far sighted. Equality means recognizing differences not just identical treatment. This has led to a greater partnership among groups pursuing fair access to employment opportunities and has resulted in far greater success. The wisdom of the Canadian strategy is proven in our progress. The record shows that while Canadians still have some concentrations of under-representation, advances have been significant under the existing Employment Equity Act and will only increase with the improvements provided in Bill C-64.

That speaks volumes about the Canadian approach. We are not interested in overloading the courts with employment equity challenges. We are looking for equal employment opportunities for Canadian women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities.

We want to ensure fairness for all Canadians by assuring everyone has equal access to a job because we all know Canadians will benefit when we do. The best long term investment we can make as a country is in the creation of a more productive economy that fully capitalizes on the wealth of knowledge and skills of all members of society.

I can assure members of this House and reassure all Canadians that this government has no intention of repealing or weakening its employment equity legislation. We will continue to work diligently in the proud tradition of this great nation to assure the dignity of each and every member of our communities and our country. Canadians expect no less. With this in mind, I urge all members of this House to vote against the Reform Party's motion.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to this member I kept reflecting back on the reason the Reform Party came into the House and why we were elected as a new party with 52 members to represent the people in our ridings across the west.

One of the reasons was the existence of so much top down government with the message that it would tell people in the ridings across the country what government thought was best for them. That has been the attitude of government in the past and that is the attitude of the present Liberal government.

I know the majority of people in my riding do not want employment equity. They feel it is intrusive, abusive, discriminatory and certainly that it reflects the negative side of government in the past.

Since the member is speaking on behalf of many of her constituents, how many of her constituents did she poll on this particular matter? How much is the program going to cost the taxpayer? Did she tell that to her constituents?

Another question came up when I was reviewing some of the act. A section deals with organizations or departments that employ 100 people or more. The employment equity aspect does not involve those below 100 employees. Why would it not include everyone in this whole picture? If this Employment Equity Act is so important, why is everyone not included in it?

Those are the reasons many of us on the Reform side are going to vote against any possible amendments that come up on C-64.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, through the political process, I have gone through a metamorphosis from a neophyte to a second term member of Parliament now. More than that, I am a human being who literally sits with my constituents. In the north we have very small confines. I live with my constituents. I cannot disappear into a city as one might in cities like Ottawa and Calgary. I live with my constituents.

We did have a poll and it was a great poll. It was won poll by poll. I did have a poll and I have the utmost confidence. I won my election in a landslide in 1988. When I won my election employment equity was part of the red book. In 1993 I won every single poll in my riding, advanced polls, special polls, every poll. Those are the polls that count.

I do not believe we can have a 1-900 democracy or 1-900 governments. That is not the way to run this country. That is being a chicken because they cannot face up to it and make the decisions people elected them to make. They elected me to make the tough decisions. I am here and I will make them with this government.

If the people are afraid in that city, I do believe the member has made it intrusive. He has talked about this legislation as intrusive, as abusive and as discriminatory as Reformers have done with almost every other piece of legislation that has come forward that people have supported.

If the people of Canada did not like employment equity they would not have voted for us. They read about it in the red book in 1993 and we were elected with a full majority. It was clear and it gets clearer by the day what we intend to do.

We are making the federal contractors program and this employment equity legislation as broad, as fair and as all inclusive as possible. It is not intrusive, discriminatory or abusive. It is anything but that. It will be inclusive. It will create for once in the 125 year history of this country the kind of equity that is needed so that all members in this House can participate, all members of this country can participate. For God's sake, even Reform Party members can participate. That is how inclusive it is.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the minister's eloquent remarks about equity and fairness, even in her response a few minutes ago about allowing all members to be treated equally in this House.

New Democrats govern 52 per cent of the population provincially right now in Canada. We treat everyone equally, as fairly as we possibly can and much fairer than other governments of the Liberal stripe provincially.

Given her years of talk about employment equity and given her comments and concerns respecting equality and fairness, would the minister support treating members of the New Democratic Party caucus in this House with equity and fairness as we have treated the Liberals in Saskatchewan's legislature? Would she do this by giving them at least a role in question period, full membership on committees, a front row seat for our leader and those sorts of courtesies which do not cost anyone any money but do provide a sense of equality and fairness in this House of Commons?

As the minister knows precedents have been set in previous legislatures that show very clearly that New Democrats have exercised fairness and equality. We just do not talk about it. All I have heard so far from the government is talk about equality and fairness. Where does the minister stand in providing a fair and equitable role for the New Democrats in the House of Commons?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate. I expect much more from the New Democratic Party members in dealing with this very important piece of legislation than to piggyback their own personal political party agendas on this really important piece of legislation. I am amazed that the hon. member would not only mix in his own personal political party agenda but also would drag in the whole issue of the provinces and the particular arrangements they have.

I expect support from the New Democrats. After all the years of singing the praises of employment equity, I expect the member to support us on this bill. That is what New Democrats say they believe. He should lay aside his own personal agenda and negotiate that in the procedures that are available to him through the Speaker's chambers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I must interrupt you, as your time is up.

Before giving the floor to the next person, I would like to inform the House that Mrs. Gagnon, the member for Québec, has given her time slot to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, first off, I would like to thank my colleague for Québec for the courtesy. I am convinced that she is a supporter of employment equity.

The motion introduced today by our colleague for Fraser Valley East once again shows the Reform Party's intention to eliminate employment parity and to backtrack regarding Canada's achievements in the area of equality of rights over almost 40 years.

We know that in 1986, the former government passed the current law on employment equity. I congratulate it for this accomplishment. But it was the Liberal government preceding that government which established the principles and set down the cornerstones of employment equity.

In 1986, these principles were even entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides for the creation of laws, programs and activities to improve the situation of disadvantaged people. We built a framework of principles reflecting our vision of society and its future and established values for our society.

This is most of all evident in section 15 of the charter, which discusses non-discrimination regarding employment. The charter also covers the issue of the equality of women in sections 25, 26 and 27, and the issue of multiculturalism in section 28.

I must say that Canadian values are very well expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that section 15 covers all rights and gives us the potential to promote those who are disadvantaged in our society.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make the business case. There is not only the fairness and equality case which is first and foremost as a Canadian value, but there is also the business case for employment equity.

As much as it is statistically justifiable, socially desirable and morally the right thing to do, it is also a fundamental necessity in today's business world. Even a cursory examination of current market conditions makes it abundantly clear that Canadian companies must fully capitalize on this country's greatest resource, its rich and diverse workforce, if they are to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy.

Hon. members of this House need not take it from me nor from this side of the House. Perhaps Reform members and their supporters might take a lesson from the people they admire so much, the independent business people and the large corporations. Take a lesson from what they have to say about the importance of diversity and gender equity to their business and their business values and to ours as well.

Throughout my remarks I will highlight comments of some of this country's most progressive business leaders, people who have found out for themselves that employment equity is not just a matter of common sense but also one of dollars and cents. Private sector firms including Canadian National, Canadian Occidental Petroleum, Bank of Montreal, Hydro Québec, et cetera, see equity as an asset and have seized it as a tool for improving their companies' performances. They have discovered diversity is a value added. We all know how important value added is in the competitive global economy we have to face.

Let me quote just one proponent of employment equity, Bernard Isautier, chief executive officer of Canadian Oxy:

In the global village we must learn to respect, appreciate, understand and value differences, in terms of race, ethnic groups, gender, culture and language. Diversity is a source of competitive advantage. If a company is to be successful in today's business environment, it must develop policies and practices in step with an increasingly diverse workforce.

I would like to briefly outline some of the key business considerations in the employment equity question which includes the fundamental principle of merit. Of course we are going to hire someone based on equivalent capacity and ability to deliver the job and do the task. We may have to train some people but there is certainly a merit principle as well as the ethnocultural reality of Canada's people and the equality of men and women.

Let us look at this. There is the matter of the changing face of the marketplace. People reporting ethnic origins other than Canadian, British or French now account for 40 per cent of the country's population. That number is expected to climb to 50 per cent within the decade. With these people come new markets and demands for new products or services which Canadian companies are finding profitable to satisfy. It is no longer just white rice and white bread, it is the whole range of wheat, grains and cereals that we can enjoy.

Petro-Canada, as one example, saw a 15 per cent improvement in gasoline sales in Vancouver when it started offering services in Mandarin as well as English, as did the Bank of Montreal in the delivery of its services.

Not only are there burgeoning business opportunities at home, but global trade is opening doors to markets with the potential for unprecedented growth abroad. International business, I would remind everyone in the House, is multicultural, multilingual and multiracial. Canada is a global village. That is who we are.

We are reflective of the four corners of the world. Those four corners have been here for a long time. The people are competent and capable and have the potential to meet the challenges of the new global economy. Opportunity knocks and Canada's diverse people are a natural competitive advantage. They may be seen now as a hidden advantage, but let us bring that out into the light and look at it in the clear light of fiscal reality. We cannot afford to exclude anyone nor should we wish to.

The Conference Board of Canada, with the assistance of the multicultural programs which I manage, recently released an 18-month study called "Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian Business" which documented the financial gains to be had from using our diverse workforce to access untapped markets both within Canada and around the world. The study's author, Christine Taylor, noted that the single most significant barrier to change is the belief that diversity is not a business issue.

If there is still any doubt among my colleagues they will be interested to learn that the report from the Conference Board of Canada notes that the gross domestic product rates in Latin America, China and the Pacific rim range from 6 per cent to 12 per cent annually. The purchasing power in these countries is enormous and holds tremendous potential for Canadian business. Let us not forget the business task force which the Prime Minister led to these parts of the world. These fast developing regions require vast investments in infrastructure, in public systems and capital. It takes special people to make such transactions happen.

More and more employers are finding that ethnocultural diversity, including visible minorities, with insider knowledge and contacts within those countries are instrumental in penetrating these new lucrative markets. These people are not being hired because of legislative requirements or simply out of a

sense of duty or altruism. Progressive businesses are choosing these qualified employees for the value they add to the company.

Unfortunately too many Canadians do not know about our secret power, the hidden asset of Canada. It is about time they did. If enough Canadian companies recognized this new reality there would not be any people looking for jobs. Too many are still bound by the straitjacket of stereotypes. That is why we need employment equity. It will bring better equality and justice and it will also meet the business needs of the community.

I hope Reform members are listening so they might decide to have an open mind. Never mind doing their polling, maybe they should think and talk to their constituents.

If critics are truly concerned about the welfare of corporate Canada, surely they cannot be opposed to employment equity measures that will enhance their ability to compete. As the conference board study notes: "Competing to win in the global economy requires an ability to attract, retain, motivate and develop high potential employees of both genders from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds".

Having an employment equity plan in place eliminates the barriers that may prevent employers from harnessing the full potential of the workforce. I have had the pleasure of working on the Conference Board of Canada study with Prem Benymadhu, a really incredible gentleman who is the vice-president of human resources research. He said that much more than being a nice thing to do it really is essential for Canada. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that increased access to domestic and international markets is the only business advantage of employment equity.

Companies are learning that recruiting, promoting and retaining people who are representative of the Canadian population helps them provide better and more responsive client service. When we walk into a store and see ourselves reflected on the screen as part of the picture, when we see ourselves in the ads, whether we are brown, yellow, white or whatever our skin shade is, we feel that we are included, not excluded, and have a sense of belonging. We feel welcome and know we have our place within the peoples of Canada.

Companies report that there is an increase in market share of 38 per cent when they have changed their advertising and direction. By the way, I refer members to the Advertising Council of Canada study which indicated a tremendous increase in sales and customers when this principle and concept is applied.

The conference board survey showed one-half of the respondents discovered it was necessary to tailor their customer service practices to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse customer base. Responding to those changing needs is apparently very profitable. There was a very interesting explanation given to us by the Bank of Montreal on how it targeted its various bank branches to the population it was serving.

Therefore, it is apparently very profitable. The majority of companies reported an increase in market share. Seventy-eight per cent showed significant increases in customer feedback and 38 per cent indicated that their revenues had increased. I am sure everyone would love to give a business report like that.

Employment equity proves to be equally beneficial inside organizations too. Among the many advantages are improved workplace morale, higher retention rates and greater productivity. In fact, many managers find that women's work style, which focuses on team work, collaboration and open communications and mutual support, is especially well suited to the communication demands of the workplace in the information age.

Enlightened employers recognize that employment equity gives them improved access to a much larger pool of well informed and qualified personnel, which raises some very pragmatic issues around the whole question of an aging workforce.

Despite current unemployment conditions, demographic projections make it clear that Canada will soon be searching for qualified workers. Within a decade we will start to experience a severe skills shortage because of retiring baby boomers. That will also present other issues with respect to the aging of our population. They are all important social policy and program issues.

Given these population trends, given the decreasing birth rate within Canada, all but one-third of the new entrants to the workforce by the year 2000 will be members of the Employment Equity Act designated groups: women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. I would suggest that be carefully considered when members are looking at public policy. Maybe when they come out with their revision to what could be a good red book, they would find why and when.

Our country will need every one of these people and the time to prepare for the transition is now. As the report prepared by the Royal Bank of Canada stated, with a labour shortage predicted in the future and a more diverse population, it is very important to get off the mark quickly before the labour crunch hits.

That is why the vast majority of employers, such as the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, federally regulated employers in the transportation and communication industries and other stakeholders affected by Bill C-64, the

employment equity legislation, which as members know the committee has finished reviewing, recognize the need for legislation in employment equity.

It makes good business sense. If one looks at the whole issue employment equity it is designated to promote the optimal use of our rich human resources. Although we have contract compliance, good business practice would not need and does not need it because it is something that you would want to do to improve your access to the market, to invite people into your stores, to place before them merchandise that they like, that they want and that they will buy.

The questions we are looking at and the bill concerning employment equity are intended to act as a stimulus to our national economy while correcting the injustice of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.

When practicality for business companies is coupled with dignity for individuals everyone wins. I remind the House that for all the business benefits of employment equity-they are obvious and I have enunciated a number of them-it is in the interest of fairness and equality, in the interest of the value system that we have put before the Canadian people. It is a system that is inclusive and not exclusive, that is neither abusive nor unfair. It is one that looks at all people in Canada and says: "You are welcome. There is a place for you with your skills, with your knowledge, with your competence and with your abilities". It is not smart business to be exclusive.

I remember studying section 15 of the Canadian Constitution. It was delayed three years after the acceptance of the charter of rights and freedoms. That study took a year out of our lives. We examined section 15, the non-discriminatory section, and suggested the changes that were to come before the House in terms of formal laws as different from policies.

Employment equity was one. It had to do as well with the whole question of where the federal government had jurisdiction so that we could have contract compliance. Many of the provinces do the same thing.

Anyone who thinks that it discriminates against what is called the traditional Canadian had better look out there and see who is the Canadian. It is all of us in all of our beauty and in all of our differences.

We planted the roots of the employment equity policy 20 years ago. Since then, the successive governments have made an effort to promote it. It would seem that the only people who question the employment equity policy are our Reform colleagues.

I recommend that all members of the House vote against the motion and that they support and speak out regarding the importance of including every single person in this country, in all of our society's employment policies and to show what it means to be Canadian.

Diversity is the beauty of this country. This is a global village. We are reflective of the four corners of the world. If members come into the constituency of almost anyone who lives in an urban, semi-urban or metropolitan area they will note those differences. They will note the diversity and will recognize the importance of being inclusive of the ethnocultural and visible diversity as well as gender equity.

I urge all my colleagues to endorse the necessary amendment so that we can get on with the business of building a better Canada, an inclusive Canada, one that looks like all of us in this House.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would argue with the hon. member who just finished speaking that a diverse workforce I agree is good for business. A workforce where one hires the best person one can hire is good business.

I certainly do not need a lecture about diversity in the workforce. As I mentioned earlier today, in British Columbia we understand and appreciate the contributions of people of all different ethnic backgrounds. If one does not and they are a business person they will soon be out of business in the lower mainland. My goodness, we are very cosmopolitan out there and very proud of it.

The problem of course is not that we do not appreciate diversity. The thing is we do not appreciate employment equity legislation. By the turn of the century, as the member mentioned, 85 per cent of job applicants will be from the so-called designated groups. Eighty-five per cent will be coming from those four groups. By all means, any business that refuses to hire from this 85 per cent, which is going to form part of the new economy in the next decade, is not going to get necessarily the best people for the jobs. That will mean their business will be less competitive. If they are systemically discriminatory I hope they go out of business because they should obviously be hiring people based on their merit not their ethnicity.

If we have a situation, for example, in Toronto where statistically-this is just statistically, because there are always variations-people of Portuguese background have a lower standard of living, fewer employment opportunities and even a lower graduation rate from high school, which is a fact in Toronto from the Toronto school board, do you design government programs based on need? In this case they are not a visible minority and do not qualify under the employment equity program-

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You do not even know what it means, employment equity.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Do you design programs based on need or on ethnicity?

From our point of view, we say people should be helped out based on need as individuals. There are some visible minorities, for example, in our program who would receive much help. There are others who would receive no help. It should be based on demonstrated need.

According to StatsCan, Japanese Canadians by ethnicity have the highest per capita income in Canada. Do you design programs to help someone from that background or do you design them based on need? We said government assistance programs should be designed based on need regardless of ethnicity, background or gender. We should not have programs and quotas.

I know the member does not like to admit it, but it was interesting during the leaders debate here in Ontario that Lyn McLeod, the Liberal leader for Ontario, mentioned that numerical targets are just quotas. That is why she is going to do away with numerical targets if a Liberal government is elected in Ontario. In that case she agrees with the Reform Party and most Canadians who say that numerical targets are not to be appreciated and will be eliminated under a Liberal government in Ontario.

The federal Liberals happen to agree with the provincial NDP on this one. The philosophical trend is interesting.

In any event, does one design government programs based on need or based on ethnicity?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just wish the members opposite would stop and think about what they are saying. First, everyone who has chosen to come to Canada to become a citizen or who is a landed immigrant is a Canadian. One does not hyphenate a Portugese Canadian versus a Japanese Canadian. That is totally antithetical to the Canadian point of view.

Second, the reason for the targets, the goals, no matter what we want to call it, is because we have seen there has been uneven hiring, a systemic racism out there in terms of hiring practices. There needed to be some kind of mechanism to enable people to understand that after decades and decades of anti-discrimination laws nothing was moving. We certainly needed to have some form of mechanism so that those who were perpetually outside of the job stream could be included. It was not because they were low income versus high income. There are people who are low income who can end up being very high income earners. So do not give me that business. All one needs is an opportunity in life. If one is not given an opportunity to be hired because of the colour of one's skin then there is a reason why one is not getting a chance.

This kind of program and policy is to ensure that every Canadian, regardless of colour, creed, race, religion, language, sex or handicap, gets an opportunity.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.