Mr. Speaker, I do not know when I have heard such a load of garbage in my life. Let the record show that every party, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, spoke against my motion. They did not give unanimous consent to allow it to be votable because they do not want to vote on it. They do not want the record to show their prejudices and discriminatory views on matters.
Let us go through them one at a time. The hon. member for Charlotte, the Conservative, said that they fundamentally disagreed with the Reform Party. He then went on to say that the process would be too lengthy and costly.
How could it be lengthy and costly to repeal legislation? That would be the end of it. It is costly to let it continue the way it is going.
Then he went into a lengthy diatribe about pay equity. He is totally confused about the difference between the two.
Let us switch to the NDP. The member wanted to strengthen it, make it even worse, and suggested that if somebody with an accent came in the people who subscribe to the view that it should be based on merit would discriminate against him.
They are the ones who are prejudiced. They are the ones who are saying that merit or qualifications do not matter. They are saying they have quotas to be met. That comes first. That is primary. That is prejudice. That is discrimination.
Now they want to strengthen the legislation to enforce their discriminatory views and ideas even further. Then they go on to talk about merit. Talk about hypocrisy; it is complete contradiction.
The member for Churchill railed against white males. I have a friend living in Toronto who has been trying for six years to get into the fire department. He cannot because he is a white male. That is the single thing that prevents him from getting the job. He is qualified in every other way. He was told that. Finally he has given up and gone on to something else.
How fair is that to people forced to go down the road to another job instead of doing what they were more qualified to do and wanted to do but could not because of the discriminatory policies of governments like this one? It makes me sick.
The Liberal member went on to talk about the fundamental rights of equality for all. Why then do we have employment equity legislation? There are no rights to equality there. That legislation says it will look at the colour of skin, at gender and use them to judge. Is that equality? Is that fairness? They should get their head out of the sand and maybe have it examined.
I really want this to go on record with as much strength and force as possible. The Reform Party is the only party standing up for the equality of all Canadians, and Canadians ought to know that.
The Liberal member said that he was against interventionist measures of governments and quotas. Why does he support employment equity legislation? That is what it is all about. There is some degree of confusion there.
He also said that the legislation worked to the advantage of employers. How on earth could that be the case? If I have a federally regulated firm of over 100 employees and I am subject to the legislation, how is it to my advantage to say to people that I have too many with the same skin colour in the position they are applying for? Although they are the best qualified I have to give it to somebody else because of the colour of their skin. That is prejudice and discrimination. It is the kind of thing they are promoting.
Finally we move to the statements of the member from the Bloc Quebecois. She said that Canada was behind the concrete measures taken by other countries in this area, but there is no evidence to back up what she is saying. She was not listening to my speech.
I listed statistics to show there is equity already. We do not need measures that have been legislated and rammed down the throats of Canadians. They want us to stand in favour of equality for all Canadians.