House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 61% of the vote.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a government of double standards. A few minutes ago I described what happened with the minister of public works in Atlantic Canada. Talk about double standards. Hiring friends. Does this guy look at employment equity? Only if you know a Liberal and donate to the party. That is employment equity to those people over there.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
It is interesting to note the number of female leaders the Prime Minister's Liberals have had.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, no one in this country or any other country chooses to make less money than anyone else. Males do not choose that. Females do not choose that.
Everybody in this country has an equal opportunity. It is not necessary to legislate it. It is not necessary to imprison people or to fine people that do not abide by the rules.
It is a lot like any other distribution within society. I stand beside the member from Coquitlam who is female. I do not think she makes less than I do. I do not think she has any particular advantage over me or I have any particular advantage over her. She got where she is today the same way I did; she worked hard for it.
The presumption being made is that any inequity in the country can be legislated. They cannot legislate morality, although I am sure they will try hard enough. They cannot engineer a society. Have they not stopped to think about what has happened in Ontario and why? Is it just because the Ontario government is Conservative and they are not? Is that the reason they put it away?
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member's first presumption is inaccurate. Not only the west wants in. He has it all wrong. The east wants in. Central Canada wants in. The difficulty is that people across the nation are alienated by the traditional tactics of that party.
It was not just politics, for instance, that had us opt out of the MP pension plan. That traditional party at the trough will take the money and run, which alienates people across the country. It has alienated us here. The traditional approach to the Senate of that party and the other party that is gone is wrong. It has alienated most people in the country yet the Prime Minister continually appoints Liberals to the other place.
It is not some Reformer coming out of Abbotsford, Langley or Aldergrove, British Columbia, saying that he is angry. We do a fair bit of travelling ourselves and we hear it across the country.
That presumption the member just made will sink the Liberal ship. It truly will because they are basing the dissatisfaction of people on something they feel is western alienation and that is wrong.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
It is absolutely accurate. I need not say much more about it. It is extremely frustrating to listen to Liberals on the other side giving their version of the Liberal world out there without a reality check with the rest of the country.
When they refer to "those bad Reformers" it must be a racial thing with them. If they took a good look at who we are and what we represent in our communities-people of all races, colours, creeds, religion and sex-they would be a little disappointed in themselves. They should look in the mirror and wonder what they said in the House of Commons about Reformers. That is probably the lowest we can get in debates like this one. It is fine if they wish to use it but they will not get it from over here.
If the goal system is not a system of quotas, exactly what is it? What is it when we need an investigator to ensure these things are being done? What is it when people can be fined and become a criminal for not living up to a quota established by government? What is that?
It is a frustrating exercise to try to get the debate on a level that the government will understand. Its members are intent on pushing this through. They are intent on having it their way. They are intent on giving average Canadians what they think is best for them even if average Canadians do not think it is.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
One member says that is baloney.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Perhaps.
This is the politically correct Liberal government days in our Canadian society. Government members will impose on the rest of us those things we do not necessarily want. Do they really think in a community like mine that many visible minorities do not get jobs? In fact they are the majority of employees in many businesses in my community. Do they think other people say that is not fair? We have to try to employ everyone in society regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or sex.
We cannot engineer society through legislation, but the Liberals will do it because they have a majority government. The mess will be there, which they will leave behind when they are turfed out of office.
Let us talk about SMIP. Probably not one of them knows what SMIP is. Do they know? What is SMIP? They have no idea what SMIP is. That is special measures initiatives program, a new program just introduced by the Liberal government. What is it all about?
It retains the successful elements of previous special measures programs. It has new initiatives to support the development and retention of designated group members. There is a recruitment component in SMIP that is similar to old programs but is directed at other groups such as aboriginals, visible minorities and so on.
What does SMIP do? It spends money. It spends $768,000 on aboriginals; $508,000 on all employees; $992,000 on all employment equity groups; $838,000 on more than one but not all employment equity groups; $382,000 on women; and $225,000 on visible minority groups. The list goes on and on.
There is not a person in the House today on that side who even knows what SMIP does. A lot of it buys votes; it enables the government under yet another program to go around the country handing out money.
The Liberal government is involved in quotas. I have explained how and why. If someone would like to stand on the other side and explain what I said, if I were wrong about my discussion on goals and quotas, I would love to hear it. Am I wrong about sections 25 and 31? Am I wrong about section 36? If I am, let us talk about it.
How is it right to ensure fairness in an employment system while at the same time telling some people they need not apply because they do not fit into a category? The government will say that is not really so and they will get another portion of the workplace.
Young people are saying to politicians all the time, not just Reformers but Liberals as well, that they cannot get in there, that they need not apply, that they need not submit an application form to the RCMP. I have had them in my office and I asked why not. They say that they do not fit, that they are excluded from the category. How does it make right on the one hand to exclude people and on the other hand say it is fair and equitable?
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
That is exactly what she was talking about and the other one said: "You are talking about it over here".
What is the answer? The answer is: "We will fix it. We will fix it for everybody in Canada. We Liberals have the answer". Let me show what their answer is. Goals versus quotas, are they the same thing? Under the Employment Equity Act, section 6, an employer
is not required "to hire or promote unqualified persons" which is good, nor "to create new positions in its workforce", which is very good.
Also under the Employment Equity Act, section 33, the Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot impose a quota on the employer where quota is defined as "a requirement to hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number of persons during a given period". This is very good. People say: "That makes a bit of sense to us. We could probably buy into this legislation".
What is not talked about by the Liberals is section 10. In circumstances where under-representation of designated groups has been identified the employer is required to prepare a plan in which short term numerical goals for hiring and promotion of the designated groups are established. We will be getting employers to look at short term numerical goals, but these are not quotas. Also longer term goals for increasing the representation of persons in designated groups are also established.
If in the opinion of a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator-there is an investigator; hire him like the ethics counsellor who is not used either-an employer has not made all reasonable efforts to implement the employment equity plan, including the goals, the employer may, if negotiations fail, ultimately be subject to an action by an employment equity review tribunal for contempt of process similar in nature to contempt of court leading to imprisonment until the directive is complied with. This is from sections 25 and 31, mark it down.
An employer, believe it or not, can also be fined up to $50,000 by the responsible minister, who is yet to be determined, for failure to file an employment equity report, for failure to include required information in the employment equity report, or for providing false or misleading information in the employment equity report. This is from section 36, write it down.
Tell me the Liberal government does not have quotas. Tell me this is all voluntary, completely voluntary. Then tell me what it means to have an investigator on staff checking them out.
Tell me what it means to force organizations to have short term numerical goals for hiring and promotion of designated groups and long term goals. If they tell the investigator they cannot make it or they cannot do this or that then they negotiate. If that does not work, there will be a tribunal. If that does not work, they will be put behind bars.
Listen up. What is the government doing? This is not a fun exercise we are going through to get votes and spend money. What this government is legislating here is serious. It has nothing to do with racism but has everything to do with rights and privileges in this country.
Who will the government fine up to $50,000? Why will it fine someone up to $50,000?
What will the government do when it has a quota in a town where perhaps there are not the right number of people? Is will get its investigator to find somebody to take to a tribunal? What if someone is found who is absolutely not suitable for the job? Will that person be placed in the job anyway? That is a great way to get Canada competitive in the global market. The brilliance of social engineering.
Let us look at a couple of application forms. One of these forms was given to me by a backbench Liberal who is not very happy with what is going on here. Among the things asked on this application form is to self-identify. Look in the mirror or perhaps determine what kind of person you really are. Let us self-identify: cultural, racial or linguistic minority person. Explain that and define it. Lesbian, gay man or bisexual. What the heck does that have to do with employment? That is where social engineering hit. That is just one application.
Here is the government's application. The longest thing on the application is the group with which one has to self-identify: Black, Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Indonesian, Pakistani, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Burmese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, Vietnamese, visible minority west Asian, North African, visible minority Latin American, Oceanic, Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian. What is the government doing to this country?
These are application forms. The government is intent on social engineering quota systems. If something is found wrong then it will get its investigator out. He will chase it down, much like the investigator it has under the Official Languages Act. He makes his report.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this country is managed by statistics. The hon. member pulled out statistic after statistic about who is where in our society. I wish government members would go to their ridings and talk to the people one at a time. Maybe then they would understand more about what is going on in the country.
I am very happy to speak to Bill C-64, the legislation of a Liberal perfect world. It was interesting to hear the debate over the last two days, but it is somewhat disheartening. Let me go back to an issue which is somewhat related to this. Let us look at what the Liberals know about the workplace.
Today in Halifax we learned of how the minister of patronage in Atlantic Canada is meddling in the job market. Surprise, surprise. Once again the friends of the minister have mismanaged millions of taxpayers' dollars at Cornwallis Park Development Agency in what has been called potentially the biggest boondoggle in the last two decades.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. What does it mean to the Liberal minister for Atlantic Canada, the minister of public works? Once again we see that the minister of public works has his own version of job equity. A person has to belong to one of two categories in this country: either donate to the Liberals or become friends with one. That is the only way to have an equal shot at a job in Atlantic Canada.
I do not think the government has any idea of what job equity is. Who a person knows and whom they donate to are what really count.
The seeds of dissension are here among our young. They are not there for lack of a job equity bill; they are there because many of them see themselves as not being able to get jobs because of quotas. Government will deny the use of the word quota. I will explain exactly where I get this terminology: right out of the bill.
This is social engineering at its worst. Ontario has just elected to do away with it. We are not talking about America, as one of our Liberal colleagues over there said. This is Ontario. Apparently there is a mismatch now. The Ontario government says it will do away with it while the Liberal government in Ottawa is about to impose it on the rest of Canada.
It is also interesting that the last speaker from the Liberal Party said that we in the Reform Party talk about affirmative action which is all wrong. However, the Liberal member for Halifax in a partial quote said this morning, "affirmative action would not be necessary if employment equity were in existence" or something to that effect.
Employment Equity Act October 5th, 1995
Tell them about the RCMP, Lloyd.