Jim Pankiw

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He referred to manipulation of the facts. Of course, he is referring to the fact that the government is opposed to what is being proposed. The solicitor general gave a speech completely railing against the proposal but then finished off by saying that the government would vote in favour of it.

As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated, it is obvious that the reason behind it is that government members want to avoid the political backlash that would come from voting against what is being proposed. They will vote for it, without any intention of doing it. Clearly they are not supporting it, as illustrated in their speeches. I believe the member for Winnipeg—Transcona referred to that as being intellectually dishonest.

Does the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough believe that this is making a mockery of the House of Commons? Where exactly does this leave us? I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

My point is that we are talking about apples and oranges. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue the debate with the members for Winnipeg—Transcona and Langley—Abbotsford, to invite the participation of the solicitor general and his parliamentary secretary, and to hash out what we are really talking about today. Otherwise it is making a mockery of the House of Commons. The Liberals will vote for something they say is not what we are debating.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the debate, the member for Langley—Abbotsford and the member for Winnipeg—Transcona clearly outlined a problem facing the House of Commons, that is, we will be voting on a motion tonight and yet there is not a clear understanding of the purpose or the intent of the motion. Government members indicate that they intend to vote for it, yet it is obvious that—

[Tax On Tools, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, last Friday I asked the minister for multiculturalism to explain an advertisement that appeared on the online job search for the Government of Canada. This was a job with Correctional Service Canada that specifically excluded anybody from applying for the job who was not an Indian person.

The job advertisement was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine. She was highly offended that the Government of Canada would deny her the opportunity of even applying for a job, an administrative position in this case, with Correctional Service Canada because she was, according to the government, not the right skin colour or not the right race to qualify for this job.

The government's justification for this policy was what it called affirmative action. Affirmative action or employment equity are racist policies that discriminate against people on the basis of race in the hiring process. There are a couple of things that the proponents of these highly discriminatory and prejudiced race based hiring policies do not understand or are not able to answer. I would like to direct my comments to the minister about that.

First, I would like to explain to the minister, because the minister appears to not understand, that it is not possible to discriminate in favour of someone on the basis of race without discriminating against somebody else because of his or her race. For example, June Kuhn, a constituent of mine brought to my attention the fact that she was discriminated against because she was not an Indian. That is a blatant act of discrimination and is unjustifiable. The person who obtained the job in this case received it because he or she was discriminated in favour of while my constituent was discriminated against because of her skin colour.

These policies are not only racist but highly offensive. That is why over 90% of all Canadians are opposed to them. They are offensive in many ways, not the least of which is the message, which in this case singles out Indian people. The message is that they are inferior and incapable of competing for jobs on the basis of skills and merit, so they must therefore be provided with special circumstances that discriminate against other people.

I could go on for quite some time, but I will wrap this up by asking the minister a very specific question. I request a detailed answer. What does the minister say to my constituent, June Kuhn, who is denied the opportunity to even apply for a job with the Public Service of Canada because she is not the right race? What does he say to her? Instead of politically correct rhetoric and doublespeak, I would like the minister to be very specific in the answer. What does he say to someone, in this case my constituent, who was denied the opportunity to seek employment with the federal government because she is of the wrong skin colour?

[Official Languages Act, February 28th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (provision of bilingual services).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the enactment is to redefine the criteria set out in the Official Languages Act so as to avoid unnecessary expense. In setting criteria for significant demand, the act states that 25% of the population of an area must speak an official language in order to warrant service in the language.

I would point out that in addition to restoring sanity to the language debate and to the language laws of our country, the amendment would end the current effort by the federal government to force the newly amalgamated city of Ottawa to be officially bilingual.

The amendment would result in a rational approach to bilingualism in which regions whose numbers did not warrant it would not incur unnecessary expense and unilingual Canadians would not be denied fair access to jobs in the public service.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points Of Order, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period I referred to an ad that specifically excludes Indians from applying for a job in the human resources development department.

For what I think will become historical reasons I would like to table this ad in the House of Commons.

[Employment, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not understand that it is not possible to discriminate in favour of someone on the basis of race without discriminating against someone else on the basis of his or her race.

I have the ad right here. It specifically says that people who are aboriginal are excluded, as are non-Caucasian people or people who are non-white.

Since Indians are prohibited from applying for the job, what does the minister say to qualified Indians who were denied the opportunity to even apply for the job because they were—

[Employment, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the minister for multiculturalism tried to justify a Correctional Service Canada job advertisement that accepted applications from Indians only. Other races were not even eligible to apply.

I have an advertisement here from the human resources development department that also uses discriminatory policies which exclude certain races.

What does the minister say to people who are denied the right to even apply for a job because they have the wrong skin colour?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in an outrageous decision the Ontario Court of Appeal has further entrenched race based rights in our country.

This time the recipients of racially privileged hunting and fishing are the Metis of Ontario. This court ruling has opened the door to exploitation of natural resources and further extortion of concessions from Canadians on the basis of race.

Meanwhile, the Government of Canada continues to sink billions of taxpayer money into Indian and Metis programs that have developed a track record for corruption and incompetence. Cruises, kickbacks, nepotism and administrative largesse are taking their toll on the generosity of taxpaying Canadians.

Sanctimonious posturing by the Liberal government cannot hide this fact. The Indian Act is an abject failure and the court's racialist approach is making a mockery of the equality of all Canadians.

[Points Of Order, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period I made reference to a job advertisement and I would like to table the document.