Jim Pankiw

[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lumsden said that if there is a surplus in a pension fund it should be distributed back to the contributors either in the form of reduced contributions or increased benefits.

In looking at the Canada pension plan it is just the opposite. There have not been enough contributions. There is no money. In that case the Liberal government decided to put the burden of that on to the children of the country who do not have a choice in the decision.

I am wondering what the member thinks about that.

[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe we have a quorum.

[Dna Identification Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the technology of DNA is available to us. It is probably the most accurate means of being able to identify one human being from another since everyone's DNA code is different. Some people have closer matches than others, but technology has advanced to the point where science can definitely differentiate every human being in the world from one another.

I do not understand the reluctance of anyone to applying the technology available to us in the enforcement of our justice system. Fingerprinting technology is used readily and is part of law enforcement today. Fingerprints can be compared to records and it often results in solving what was previously an unsolved crime.

If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, I do not see why we would not have that person submit to a DNA test and compare it to our DNA databank. If the person is not matched to the bank of a previously unsolved crime and is exonerated of the charges brought against them, their DNA fingerprint could be removed from the databank.

It just seems that it would be in the best interests of our entire society to take advantage of this technology and use it in that respect.

With respect to destroying samples, as I said, if a person has been exonerated and the samples are destroyed there would be no harm done to the person who was falsely accused of a crime.

I was reading through the act and section 2(1) states:

The following persons may be fingerprinted or photographed or subjected to such other measurements, processes and operations having the object of identifying persons as are approved by order of the Governor in Council:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody charged with or convicted of

(i) an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designed as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act, or

(ii) an offence under the Official Secrets Act;

(b) any person who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act; or

(c) any person alleged to have committed an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act, who is required pursuant to subsection 501(3) or 509(5) of the Criminal Code to appear for the purposes of this Act by an appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance or summons.

I guess it all comes back to my original point, which was that there would be no reason not to take samples upon a person's being charged with a crime, running them through the databank system, which would ultimately determine whether that person is to be convicted. We should look at the greater good to the Canadian public and the assistance it would give our law enforcement officers.

[Employment Equity Act, November 3rd, 1997]

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.

[Employment Equity Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate. My final and most important point is that we must consider what impact this act has on the concept of the merit principle, that the best person for the job gets hired or promoted.

All Canadians support the merit principle, but the Employment Equity Act is a direct assault on that principle. The result of this act is not to promote or to hire the best person for the job but to promote or hire people based on their race or their sex. The merit principle takes a back seat.

Employment equity is about placing qualifications second and putting race and gender upfront in order to meet quotas. The government will say that there are no quotas, that there are just numerical targets but numerical targets are quotas. Let there be no mistake.

I would suggest that a majority of Canadians believe that this is wrong. Furthermore, the merit principle is not only disregarded through hiring and promotion, it is also of secondary concern when companies downsize as a result of this act.

The CBC stated in the Employment Equity Act 1996 report that it had retention strategies for designated group numbers during workforce reduction. In short, the CBC already has plans on how to lay off certain employees while keeping others based solely on their appearance. Incredible but true.

The most recent attack on the merit principle has come from the RCMP. They have announced their intention to relax the physical abilities test because too many women were failing the test. They have no choice but to change the test because the Employment Equity Act says that they must hire more women and more visible minorities.

The RCMP says the physical test is meant to simulate something a police officer may be called upon to do, such as chase a suspect or carry an injured victim from an accident scene. These job requirements go out the window now because of this Employment Equity Act.

It no longer matters if you can do the job. It no longer matters if public safety is threatened. It no longer matters if lives are lost because unqualified officers are on the force. All that matters now is whether you have met your quota. Government says “Give us a head count. Do not give us excuses about safety or competence or anything like that. We just want a head count”. That is wrong.

There are those who would argue that repeal of this act will open the door to discriminatory practices and particular groups in Canada will be left without protection. That is simply not true.

Every Canadian has access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if they have been discriminated against in any way. Furthermore the Public Service Employment Act states at section 12(3) that “the commission shall not discriminate in its selection process”.

These effective but passive measures that offer protection from discrimination are not satisfactory to the social engineers here in Ottawa. They need active measures like quotas which have been established under the Employment Equity Act. Under this act quotas are paramount and the merit principle becomes secondary when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting. That is why it must be repealed and that is why I brought forward Motion 104.

This act sets people apart based on their appearance. The effect of this act is that based on your appearance, you must be hired, promoted or retained. Is that the way to promote equity in the workplace? I think not.

This act stigmatizes people. It categorizes them as victims and it falsely tells them government is their saviour. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Canadians support the merit principle and special treatment for none. That is why I encourage all members of this House to speak in favour of this motion.

[Employment Equity Act, November 3rd, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Employment Equity Act should be repealed since it is costly, unnecessary, and in contravention of the merit principle with respect to hiring and promotion.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on Motion No. 104 which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Employment Equity Act should be repealed since it is costly, unnecessary, and in contravention of the merit principle with respect to hiring and promotion.

As the House is aware, the Employment Equity Act applies to the public service, crown corporations and federally regulated employers that have 100 employees or more. The act's stated purpose is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups.

However, the assumption that conditions of disadvantage exist has not been established and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Therefore, my first point is that the act is unnecessary and should be repealed based on the following evidence.

A study entitled New Faces in the Crowd was published by the Economic Council of Canada in 1991. The study concluded that in the Canadian workplace there is no observable tendency to discriminate against minorities.

In the summer of 1995 Stats Canada reported that minorities were just as likely to be employed as anyone in professional occupations. Stats Canada also stated that minorities enjoy rates of employment and wages similar to that of other Canadians. This flies in the face of complaints by special interest groups that minorities experience discrimination in the workplace. These special interest groups argue that statutes, such as this act, are necessary to ensure that the workplace reflects the composition of Canadian society.

However, the special interest groups are wrong because the truth is that the workplace reflects the make-up of our society. According to 1995 data, visible minorities occupy 8% of jobs covered under this act while they comprise 9% of the total workforce. Furthermore, women hold 45% of the jobs covered under this act and they constitute exactly 45% of the workforce.

Therefore, since conditions of disadvantage do not exist, as the special interest groups have attempted to lead us to believe, we must question the necessity of this act.

I would also like to point out that while we can count on the information and the statistics from Stats Canada as being accurate, the information which has been gathered under this act is not. The statistics gathered under this act are unreliable because the act relies on self-identification. People identify themselves as a member of one of four designated disadvantaged groups.

The Stentor group, while testifying before the Standing Committee on Human Rights on Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act, stated “Employee data collected by means of the self-identification process is unreliable”. Therefore, even supporters of this act cannot bring forward any reliable data that indicates what impact, if any, this act has had, is having or will have.

It seems that this flawed act is not about bringing equity to the workforce but rather about bringing particular interest groups into the government tent. If there is one thing that this Liberal government knows how to do, it is to pander for votes.

Unfortunately, this legacy of pandering and catering to special interest groups comes at a very significant cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The Employment Equity Act is no exception. In 1992 the Conference Board of Canada conducted a survey of companies to determine the cost of employment equity legislation.

When preparing our minority report on Bill C-64, Reformers obtained the assistance of the Library of Parliament in extrapolating the findings of the Conference Board of Canada to cover all Canadian businesses with 50 or more employees. We determined that if all these businesses were subject to the Employment Equity Act, the total annual direct costs would be $1 billion. While it is not possible to give an exact figure, there is no doubt that a very significant cost is associated with complying with this act.

Furthermore, the government has employment equity branches in both the Department of Human Resources Development and Treasury Board. Each department writes an annual report on the progress of employment equity measures within the public service and within federally regulated firms.

Repealing the act would not only eliminate these branches of the bureaucracy but it would also eliminate a lot of costs and a lot of red tape which federally regulated companies must now face in order to comply with the act.

When I appeared before the subcommittee, there was a bit of confusion about what the process was supposed to be because its members had a guideline that was to be followed when I made my presentation, whether this should be deemed votable or not.

Because there was confusion about what kind of information they required, it was deemed not votable. I was told afterward that there was some regret about that. Considering the amount of interest that exists concerning this motion, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this motion deemed votable.

[Firearms, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has decided to take yet another pot-shot at law-abiding gun owners in Canada.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has publicly stated his desire for an international treaty to register, control and restrict the use of small arms.

Once again the Liberal government is way off target. Rather than cracking down on the use of firearms to commit crimes, and rather than strengthening enforcement measures along our borders to stop the illegal flow of handguns, the minister would prefer to continue to harass ordinary law-abiding Canadians, even going so far as to deny them use of their own private property.

The word is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is upset because he did not win the Nobel Prize for the landmine treaty. He should not worry because he is a shoo-in for the booby prize for trampling on the rights of law-abiding Canadians. It is a disgrace.

[Canada Health Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill just introduced by the member for West Kootenay—Okanagan is critically urgent for emergency response workers. They put their lives on the line to protect Canadian citizens. They happen to be meeting in Ottawa this week.

As the member mentioned, his bill was previously introduced by the NDP. It was supported by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Therefore I request that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that his bill be adopted at second reading and sent to the Standing Committee on Health.

[Communications, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in March the Minister of Industry compared direct to home satellite retailers to drug pushers.

Mike Heck is a constituent of mine and is in the direct to home satellite business. He provides jobs in the community, pays taxes in the community and he is understandably upset over the comments of the minister.

Mr. Heck does not consider it a crime to offer Canadians freedom of choice. But the Liberals believe that if programming does not come from Canada's monopolies, officially sanctioned by the CRTC, then it will corrupt us.

Three hundred thousand Canadians have said enough is enough and have tuned the Liberal government out. They are watching what they want, paying for they want, enjoying what they want on their direct to home satellite systems. They are standing together in opposition to the Liberal government, telling it to “get its dirty little fingers off our remote controls”.

[Division No. 12, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have just arrived and I would like my vote to be recorded with my colleagues for votes two to five.