Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to this motion that, in the opinion of the House, the government should support the rights of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
One might wonder why we would even need such a thing. I think most Canadians would accept that as a given. When applying for a job one should only have to say "here is my job application, here is my merit, hire me based on what I can do for you".
I think most Canadians would say that sounds like the policy we should follow. Hiring by merit makes good sense from a business standpoint and an ethical standpoint. It also makes good sense in the workplace where workers would be able to say they were there because they merited the job.
Unfortunately in Canada that is not always the case. I am thinking specifically of the exceptions to merit. Most people are hired on merit but there are exceptions where the federal government said the merit principle did not have to apply.
The Federal Court of Canada stated in 1982 on the question of whether merit was important: "The requirements of the merit principle are always the same. That principle requires that the selection be made according to merit, which means that the best person possible will be found for the various positions in the public service". It said we should be hiring the best available person because that is what hiring by merit means.
Unfortunately the federal government does not follow this practice. Those watching on television may be surprised to know that. The regulations governing the Public Service Employment Act stated there were four exceptions to this idea that one must hire by merit. I think everyone would suggest that people hired for any job, especially in our public service should be hired according to merit. There are four exceptions for which merit does not have to be proven because there are provisions in the law against discrimination, geographic limitations on the jobs, the appeal process for job competitions and the considerations of merit will all be set aside in the case of the Employment Equity Act.
We spoke about this earlier regarding section 15(2) of the charter. The merit principle, according to the court of appeal ruling
of 1982, can be bypassed to appoint someone based not on merit but on some of the affected categories in the Employment Equity Act. We can discriminate, we can limit the application as far as geography is concerned, we can make sure that no one can appeal the eventual job allocation. The considerations of merit, the most qualified, will be set aside.
That is pretty serious stuff. Most people of both genders in all groups would say: "I am going to win this job on merit. Doggone it, I can do it, I can handle it". Right now over 50 per cent of university graduates are female. More and more post-graduates are from both genders but there is an increasing number of females. They say: "I can handle this job on my merit. I can do it. I do not need help. I do not need a special deal. I do not need the standards lowered. I can do the job". And they can. All of us know people from all groups of society who are very competent in their jobs, not based on the colour of their skin, not based on their gender, but based on their ability to do the job well.
Unfortunately, we find that these qualifications I mentioned under the Employment Equity Act allow the merit principle to be bypassed. People can be appointed as the 1982 ruling suggested who are not the most qualified but perhaps just passed the minimum requirements and fell into a category.
The designated groups according to the Employment Equity Act are aboriginal people, people of colour, females and people with disabilities. That is the description used. I do not like to categorize people that way but that is what the act does. It is pretty demeaning to say to somebody in one of those categories: "I do not think you are quite good enough for this job. We are going to have to give you a special deal because you just are not going to make it on your own".
When we held the hearings on Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act, there was a lieutenant colonel from the Canadian Armed Forces at the table. We talked about the idea of merit.
The lieutenant colonel told me: "I went from lieutenant to lieutenant colonel because I was the best in my class. There is no way I can command respect from the people who are working under me unless I continue to earn my job. I am the best in my class. I am going to be a full colonel someday too, because I am going to top my class the next time too. If they wanted to give me a promotion not because I am the best but because I am a woman and I need a little help, I would refuse. Furthermore, how could I command the men and women under me? Imagine my giving them orders: I know you have better qualifications than I do, but hop to it sergeant; you are taking orders from me. It will not work in the military. And frankly, I do not need it because I can do the job and qualify on my merit, not on the fact that I am female". I hear that often.
An interesting dilemma is that when someone is hired outside of merit not because they are the most qualified but because they fit into a category, there is no right to appeal. This is what happens. Say there are 100 applicants and a certain number of people from each of the designated groups. They will choose somebody from one of the designated groups for the job. When that individual is appointed, then someone else from that group, say an aboriginal person, will say: "Wait a minute. That woman got the job. I am going to appeal. It is not fair. I deserve the job. I could beat her qualifications". However, those designated groups are not allowed to appeal. Therefore, when someone from another designated group says: "Wait a minute. I think I should have got the job," they will say: "Sorry, there is no appeal". It is preposterous.
What about the geographic limitations? Normally in the public service there are certain geographic limitations of where an individual can apply for a job, where they live in relation to their work and those kinds of things. Not under this system. This system bypasses all of it.
I am not saying that the federal government does not pay any attention to merit. Of course the government has testing and it has minimum standards. However, the Employment Equity Act subordinates the principle of merit. That is unfortunate.
There are other things which spring from this. Under the current Nisga'a deal in British Columbia only people of one race are allowed to vote in their elections. The other people who live there, if they are not of the Nisga'a race, cannot vote. Other things happen with respect to aboriginal procurement contracts.
We all want to see equality of opportunity for everyone. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women said in a letter which she sent to me on April 16 of this year: "What we are working toward now is not the equality of opportunity but the equality of outcome. We will not make sure everyone has an equal kick at the cat," which we all want. "We will make sure that the outcome is equal regardless". That is not the merit system. That is not what Canadians want.
This motion is wise. It promotes unity in the workforce and I urge all members to adopt the motion.