Andy Scott

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the issue of quotas, targets and so on. In a previous life I was involved in the official languages policy in the province of New Brunswick. A lot of the attempts made here to try and characterize efforts to collectively address the systemic weakness are always characterized this way. There are always attempts to fix positions so they can then be thrown back in the face of the government.

The answer is no. There is an objective, you try to meet but it is not a quota.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely surprised by the inability of the member's party to address the question of the need for some collective redress to the lack of representation.

I am an Atlantic Canadian. We have always believed a little bit that in the nation we are on the outside. I have some sympathy for those people who feel that the power structures at play do not always work in their favour.

Everything I have read and have heard expressed by the member's party in terms of where they were born speaks to expressions like western alienation and so on. It seems to me there should be some affinity between the member and his party and those people for whom the system just does not work as well as it does for others. I think it is political posturing on the part of the member to draw in someone else's comments in some other debate.

Ultimately this is about a fundamental principle. We have to understand that the system does not work equally for everybody. I have heard it said by many people in the member's party that is the case and that therefore certain actions have to be taken. I find it unfortunate that a member representing a party that speaks of this often would deny the same access to people for whom the system obviously does not work as well as it does for someone like me, a seventh generation, white, male Canadian.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate today. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for sharing his time with me.

It is a great honour to rise in the House to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East which seeks to condemn the government for its policies in the area of employment equity, in particular Bill C-64. To be honest, I find the hon. member's motion hard to fathom since it flies in the face of two of the most cherished core values we hold as Canadians, justice and equality.

The member of the opposition is correct in one regard, namely that this government is deeply committed to assuring equality of opportunity for all Canadians. This should come as no surprise for our red book clearly states that we seek a country where all of us see ourselves as contributors and participants and not liabilities and dependants. It further underlines our commitment to building a Canada characterized by integrity, compassion and competence.

Cherishing those values as we do, it is little wonder we would support employment equity which is, after all, simply a tool for assuring fairness in daily life. That is what we seek to do in Bill C-64.

Why is the bill needed? While some progress has been made by the existing Employment Equity Act, recent statistics indicate that much remains to be done. 1993 actually saw the number of employees covered under the Employment Equity Act drop by 4.27 per cent. That is almost 26,000 people. Much of this was the result of the layoffs which flowed from the recent economic downturn from which we have just emerged. Sadly, members of the designated groups covered by Bill C-64 were often the hardest hit.

While the number of people in designated groups increased, fewer of them found themselves in the labour market. Among those who did, most did not see the wage gains and promotional opportunities enjoyed by other working Canadians.

Many women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities still find themselves on the bottom rung of the economic and social ladder. Of course this is not just their problem. Rather, it is a problem for all of us since restricting their participation in the economic life of our country also damages the competitiveness of Canadian business.

It is increasingly obvious that a diverse workforce benefits companies by providing them with improved access to a greater number of qualified people. Indeed many businesses now realize that recruiting, promoting and retraining people who are representative of the Canadian population helps them provide better and more responsive client service since diverse experience and perspectives are a bonus, not a burden.

How does this bill present a balanced approach? Contrary to what the hon. member and other members of his party might think, the bill before us is not some piece of wild-eyed radicalism totally divorced from the realities of economic life. Rather it is a moderate and thoughtful document which seeks to promote equal opportunity in the workplace without imposing an onerous regulatory environment on businesses that are already hard pressed in the increasingly competitive global marketplace.

This balanced approach can be seen in all of the amendments contained in the bill. For instance, while the act seeks to encourage employers to address under-representation by members of designated groups, it does not require them to hire unqualified people, create new positions, create undue hardship or contradict the merit principle.

Likewise, it does not impose a quota system as has occurred in other jurisdictions. While we have listened to representatives of designated groups who have called for an effective enforcement mechanism, we have also listened to business representatives who have asked that we not bury them under a mass of new regulations and paper burden. We have developed a series of amendments which combine practicality with justice. As a result, we are all winners.

At the same time, many of the amendments contained in the bill represent little more than housekeeping. They will simply extend to the public sector those requirements which have already been placed on the private sector. This is only fair.

Finally, the act will broaden the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to allow it to conduct audits of public and private sector employers in order to verify and gain compliance with the act. Even here we are ensuring a balance with the establishment of the employment equity review tribunal.

Canadians are justly proud of the core values which are at the heart of our country. Central to our value system is a concern for ensuring equal opportunity and justice for all Canadians. The existing Employment Equity Act passed in 1986 has led to real progress in ensuring greater equality of employment. Still, much remains to be done. The act before us represents an important step forward in assuring that all Canadians can enjoy equal opportunity in employment and promotion. At the same time it seeks to provide a vital balance between idealism and economic reality.

The government's employment equity policies are not about intrusiveness, discrimination or adding to the cost burden to Canadian business as the hon. member's motion suggests. Rather they are about fairness, about the government's commitment to ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of gender, race or physical attributes has a chance to fulfil his or her potential, to get a rewarding job and to contribute to the social and economic well-being of Canada.

Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a catalyst for progress in the workplace and a boost to the competitiveness of Canadian companies in an increasingly demanding global economy. Most of all, it is about putting into practice the values that make us Canadian: fairness, justice and equality for all. It is for this reason that I cannot support the motion, but I will be supporting the legislation before the House and would encourage all members to do likewise.

[Fredericton Chamber Of Commerce, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend congratulations to the Fredericton Chamber of Commerce on winning the 1995 Chairman's Award. This award is given to the Atlantic province's chamber of the year.

The award was in recognition for the Fredericton chamber's business development initiatives in 1994-95. The Fredericton Chamber of Commerce contributes annually to the Greater Fredericton Economic Development Corporation. In addition to financial support, the chamber has a member on the board.

Further, the chamber has played a leading role in the commercialization initiative at the Fredericton airport and has contributed generally to the growth of Fredericton's information based economy.

Congratulations to past president Stuart Blair, present president Bill Macmakin and Krista Hamilton and her staff. It is thanks to these people and to these kinds of initiatives that my riding continues to find success in attracting new businesses and providing leadership in the growing new economy.

[Technology, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the business and professional organizations of my riding that assembled recently in an attempt to explore opportunities to enhance democracy through the use of new technologies.

I have made a personal commitment to consultation in my riding and this initiative is another step in refining the process. The brainstorming session that took place covered all areas of technology with representatives from cable, computer, software, hardware, communications and telecommunications industries.

I anticipate great things as a result of the gathering with more access available to the public policy development process and a real economic development benefit to the high tech centre of Atlantic Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

I thank everyone who came out and look forward to future developments as we continue to explore technological opportunities to our mutual advantage.

[The Holocaust, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I spoke at the Holocaust Memorial Service held in Fredericton. This year's service marked the 50th anniversary of the liberation by allied forces of the Nazi death camps.

These camps are the graveyards for millions of individuals, the vast majority of whom are Jews. They committed no crime. They broke no laws. They did nothing to deserve the medical experimentation, tattooing, forced labour and gassing they endured. It is a blight against humanity that anything so unspeakable could occur in what we think of as a civilized society and that it could go on for so long.

If anything can be gained by the inhuman crime that was the Holocaust, I hope it is awareness on the part of every individual to be on guard against attitudes that could lead to anything resembling this atrocity from ever happening again.

[Hmcs Fredericton, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on April 6 the crew of the British sailboat Longo-Barda , en route to England after competing in a race off the coast of Australia, was attacked by pirates near Somalia. They fired mortar at the ship and were prepared to hijack it when one of Canada's new warships, the HMCS Fredericton speeded to the rescue, responding to the crew's distress call. The would be thieves fled the scene at once.

The navy officers aboard the helicopter frigate had heard the sailboat's mayday call en route to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where the ship is used to promote Canadian technology.

On behalf of all Canadians and particularly those in Fredericton, I congratulate and thank the captain and crew of the HMCS Fredericton for their act of heroism.

[Young Achievers Award, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend congratulations to Measha Gosman on winning the YTV Young Achievers Award for 1995 in the vocal category.

Measha is a grade 12 student in my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury. She now holds the distinct position of being only the second of two people from Fredericton to receive this recognition in the six-year history of the award.

Constituents, New Brunswickers and her parents are obviously very proud.

Competition is fierce for the YTV award since only 15 are presented annually. Categories for the competition range from dance to entrepreneurship, and more than 1,000 young Canadians are nominated each year.

I look forward to seeing Measha at the awards ceremony here at the National Arts Centre tonight. On behalf of the people of Fredericton-York-Sunbury, I wish her well in her national television performance.

[Public Service, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

When the public service downsizing initiative was announced last month, the government committed to ensuring that departmental officials at the local level would be given the flexibility necessary to adjust staff and program requirements prior to final regulation and legislative proposals.

Would the minister please update members on what steps have been taken to ensure that local management has the ability to respond to individual and community needs in the downsizing exercise?

[Hate Propaganda, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North.

The idea of the propagation of hatred, regardless of whether it is through the computerized bulletin boards and the Internet, is morally repugnant and has been acknowledged as such in Canadian law.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada anyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for up to two years. It is also a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure public spaces, whether cyberspace or not, are free from incitements of hatred against any particular group in society. We must be vigilant. It is not enough to be against racism, we must also be willing to fight it.

We cannot fall into the trap of only fighting when it is simple, easy and clear. Sometimes it is not easy. Questions of freedom of speech and freedom of academic expression enter the debate but we cannot hedge because we find the issues difficult. We must bring tolerance and societal rejection of racism to bear entirely in that debate.

I quote from the Canadian Bar Association, 1984: "Canada has never recognized the concept of unlimited freedom of expression. In order to prevent harm to others, Canadian legislators have imposed a number of reasonable limits on freedom of expression".

Laws in Canadian society which limit the ability of individuals to communicate hate are based both on international standards and on the the specific character of Canadian society. Canada has signed two international conventions which require us as citizens of the world to prevent the spread of hate propaganda.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was ratified by Canada in 1947 and reinforced by article 20 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified in 1976.

Further it should be noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not necessarily guarantee an unlimited right to free speech. Section 27 of the charter states: "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada". Thus, one may argue that hate propaganda has no place in the political discussion of a multicultural society.

The information highway is currently being used by over 40 million people. It can be an instrument of good or an instrument of evil. For example, information can instantly be shared between a university library in Germany with an online university in New Brunswick. It compresses time and distance like no other technology yet developed.

It creates a truly global village in which we can all profit from the gains in knowledge in countries halfway around the world, simply with the click of a button. On Parliament Hill and in federal departments, this technology is being introduced and used.

Since the government is actively promoting the use of the technology, we have a responsibility to guard its innocence because it is not only a tool used for good, but also for evil. Organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and Holocaust deniers have news groups that propagate their messages of hate and intolerance toward minorities over the Internet. These messages are fully accessible to the public.

I have read some of these messages and they are filled with racial slurs and disgusting language. Not only are they using the Internet as a conduit for their messages of intolerance, but I am advised pro-Nazi groups have recruitment programs in which they go to schools and encourage young people to embrace their ideologies.

These postings on the Internet can easily be found by children, who many would agree, and as my colleague has mentioned, are among the most knowledgeable about this technology. Many use the info highway in schools and have greater understanding of it than their parents.

The child can easily be one step ahead of the adult, leaving the parent powerless in monitoring the child's activities and open to these postings. These messages have a powerful impact on young minds. Herein lies the difficulty of parental control and why it is important for the government to be engaged in this exercise and to enact legislation that would actively prohibit this kind of message from being sent in the first place.

Because of the complexity of this problem, it is important for the government to establish a centre of responsibility to deal not only with this question, but with questions of trade, copyright issues and education, either by establishing a minister for this technology or designating responsibility to an existing department, or beyond that, it should be done by the Minister of Industry.

We could follow the model of New Brunswick, where there is already a secretary of state responsible for the information highway. There has been considerable debate in my own constituency of Fredericton-York-Sunbury around the propagation of hatred on the Internet. It is my intention to strike a committee that would make recommendations through me both to the Minister of Industry and his advisory committee and to Parliament on how some of these issues should be tackled. It is a new problem and there is a need for broad input.

However, there must be a balance. We cannot let our efforts here lead to incidents of excessive restrictions on speech. It is an important right that cannot be ignored. There are laws against the enticement of hatred against certain groups and they also must be upheld, improved and their values applied to new realities.

As a government we must promote the truth. We must also be aware of those who are promoting another agenda. It is my personal belief that within all of us is the instinct for tolerance, fairness and compassion. It is only out of fear, misinformation and insecurity that we turn to emotions that are less generous.

This is a global problem. If Canada were to adopt legislation that would screen out certain messages, there is nothing stopping someone from simply clicking to another country and signing on from there. They would have access to everything. That is why we need to work with other nations in formulating guidelines for the information superhighway. The Group of Seven meeting this summer in Halifax would be an ideal event at which to engage our fellow member countries in the discussion.

If we could agree on a vision for the future of this technology, it would be a great step forward. We are a fair-minded, resourceful and enlightened population and our resolve should not be diminished by the magnitude of the task. I am confident that a solution will be found which will ensure that everyone, regard-

less of ethnicity or lifestyle choice, will be able to use the electronic highway free from fear of harassment and verbal abuse.

I am pleased to second the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I call on all members to say no to the propagation of hatred, regardless of the medium.