Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Committees Of The House May 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
The committee has considered vote 15 under justice in the main estimates ending the fiscal year March 31, 1996 and now reports the same.
Supply May 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental rule in law. If one relies on hearsay it is very dangerous. It is not my recollection that this member had attended a meeting of our committee. Perhaps I missed one.
Second, for him to say the chair decided on a five-minute limit to debate on clause by clause, please check the record.
Supply May 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot be fooled. I have faith in our people.
The Reform Party has to be sure it has seen the questionnaire, the subquestions and whether the explanations have been given very well. That not being done, I will not comment further on that point.
Second, he alluded to advertisements being posted limiting hiring to certain designated groups. This is against the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is not the intent of the legislation. Bill C-64 will not condone such advertising. If the member has knowledge of that he has an obligation to report it to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and file a proper complaint. I will be with him challenging that kind of advertising.
The last point is that there is no discrimination now in the workforce according to the study which I have not seen. I will admit for the sake of argument in his reading of this that there has been no discrimination against visible minorities. Let us assume for the sake of argument it is a statement of fact. He said the study was done in 1992. The present law was passed in 1986.
My conclusion is the law is working. Let us keep it to sustain positive equality in Canada.
Supply May 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
I am pleased to rise today to address the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East. I cannot say I am surprised that the hon. member and his party have chosen to deplore the government's employment equity policy.
From the beginning of the hearings on Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, held by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the member and his party have been opposed to the principle and practice of employment equity. They have gone so far as to breach parliamentary tradition by going to the press with complaints about the bill before the beginning of clause by clause study of the bill by the committee.
Ostensibly the Reform Party was desperate to draw attention to its political agenda. Frustrated by the lack of media coverage of the press conference, it became more interested in dilatory tactics than substantive debate during clause by clause study of the bill.
I will now address point by point the motion before us. The Reform Party claims that employment equity is unnecessary. This could only be so if members opposite could show that the Canadian workplace proportionately reflects the demographics of qualified members of designated groups in the Canadian workforce: women, visible minorities, First Nations peoples and persons with disabilities. In fact documents show otherwise.
The Reform Party claims the policy is ineffective. A study done by the Conference Board of Canada on the impact of the existing legislation shows that the major impetus for employment equity initiatives by employers was the passage of the 1986 Employment Equity Act.
The Reform Party claims the policy is unpopular. I counter that witnesses before the committee studying the new employment equity legislation, representing thousands and thousands of Canadians, were nearly unanimous in their praise of the thrust and strength of the legislation.
Moreover, it should be noted that equity in employment is about justice, fairness, human decency and human dignity. Employment equity as a policy and as a law is for all and benefits all Canadians, workers and employers alike.
The Reform Party claims employment equity is intrusive. I would counter that more than 90 per cent of the witnesses that appeared before the committee welcomed the policy, welcomed the legislation and said that it made good business sense.
Employers which appeared as witnesses included the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and many more. Witnesses from labour included the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance, la Confédération des syndicats nationaux among others. Designated groups which appeared as witnesses included Women in Trades and Technology, the Assembly of First Nations, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council among others. These wit-
nesses; employers, labour and designated groups, all welcomed the employment equity policy of the government.
It should be noted that the non-designated group continues to be hired and accounts for 55 per cent of the workforce according to the latest figures from Statistics Canada.
The Reform Party claims that employment equity is discriminatory. I counter that the bill explicitly aims to achieve equality. Equality is the antithesis of discrimination.
The purpose of this act "is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability". The purpose is clearly stated in clause 2 of Bill C-64. Therefore, I highly recommend that the Reform Party once more read the clause, if not the entire bill. In fact, discrimination in hiring and promotion is the very injustice the employment equity policy and the attendant legislation seek to redress.
The Reform Party moves that "this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit". I am pleased that at least on this score the Reform Party has it right. It pays once in a while for the Reform Party to heed government legislation and government advice.
Bill C-64, the employment equity legislation which is before the Chamber, specifically stipulates in clauses 6(b) and (c) that the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to hire or promote unqualified persons and to ensure that merit is fulfilled.
The Reform Party claims that discriminatory employment practices could be more vigorously pursued on an individual case by case basis. That is the same type of logic which says, "We do not need more crime prevention; what we need is more police action after crimes are committed. Forget preventing crime, policing is all that counts. Catch the rascals and lock them up". In effect that is the logic of the Reform Party. However, I am pleased to say it is not the policy of the government. I am confident it is not the belief of the vast majority of Canadians.
I counter that a more appropriate approach where systemic barriers to fair hiring practices still exist would be by way of legislation and other government policy initiatives such as education and training as was indicated by the Reform Party. However, education and training alone are not enough.
Francine Arsenault, as chairwoman of the provincial organizations on the handicapped, once said:
Disabled Canadians and other disadvantaged groups have worked long and hard to improve our appalling rate of representation in Canada's workplace. We have tried education and awareness programs. We have tried fostering goodwill, yet little has changed. The real causes of discrimination are not individuals but inflexible systems.
I pause here to call the minds and hearts of the Reform Party members to this observation in the hope that they will change their minds and hearts and withdraw the motion.
Employment equity legislation expresses the will of the government that equity in employment is a priority and a right for all Canadians qualified for a job, irrespective of race, gender, origin or presence of disability.
How ironic and unfortunate that the motion from the Reform Party has been introduced at this time when we are celebrating National Access Awareness Week. This is a week during which we specifically focus on the barriers which have prevented full participation of persons with disabilities in community life, including the workplace.
This is a week during which we reaffirm as a nation our belief in equality of opportunities and results for all. This is a week during which we resolve as a nation that we shall tear down the barriers that limit full participation of all persons and supply the necessary tools, including legislation, to facilitate equity in employment. I ask, where is the heart of the Reform Party?
I say to the Reform Party, fear not reverse discrimination, fear not employment equity policy, fear not employment equity legislation, but fear that equity in employment for women, visible minorities, First Nations people and persons with disabilities remains an elusive national dream.
In conclusion, Canada shall continue to aspire at all costs and work hard to realize this national dream.
Supply May 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, first by way of comment, with respect to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, let it be recorded that a list was submitted by the Reform Party and many people on the list declined the invitation to appear before the committee. It was no fault of the committee.
Second, even at the last minute some witnesses cancelled out. That again was beyond the control of the committee studying the employment equity bill.
Third, the member said on the steering committee that we would look at this in committee of the whole. To now fret over it after the fact I leave to the imagination of the House.
The member said equality of opportunities may not necessarily lead to equality of results. That is right. However she failed to ask the question: What if the cost of the inability to lead to equality of results is systemic discrimination? Would the member agree that the best approach would not be on an individual case by case basis but a systemic approach such as legislation and policy initiatives of government?
The member kept on referring to preferential hiring. This is the myth one perpetuates if one would like one's political agenda to win, but it is not being honest with Canadians. To say that it should only be based on the principle of merit and qualifications as though people in designated groups, women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and First Nations people have no qualifications and no merit.
Studies have shown that they have been discriminated against for decades. Why would the member continue to insist that numerical goals are the same as quotas? The bill before the Chamber states in subclause 30(1):
No compliance officer may give a direction under section 23 and no Tribunal may make an order under section 27 where that direction or order
(e) would impose a quota on an employer.
The bill is very clear that it is not about quota. If the Reform Party would only pose this question to the Canadian people, I am sure it would get the right answer.
National Access Awareness Week May 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, National Access Awareness Week, which begins today, is about learning, be it academic, vocational, or on the job training.
Halls of learning and new technologies that facilitate the learning process should be accessible to persons with disabilities. Technology, remember, enabled physicist Stephen Hawking, despite his disabilities, to share his brilliant scientific insights with all mankind.
Technology has allowed many Canadians with disabilities to share their special talents, one of whom is recognized annually with the Centennial Flame research award of Parliament.
All Canadians benefit when citizens with disabilities are integrated fully in our homes, schools, workplaces, and in sports. This special week reminds us of our national dream for our citizens with disabilities and of our will to realize this dream.
I am pleased this government has heightened its resolve to tear down the barriers that limit participation and to supply the tools that facilitate integration.
Child-Proof Lighters May 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The 75-day allotted period for public comment on the draft regulations requiring cigarette lighters to be equipped with child-resistant safety locks has been complied with following publication in part I of the Canada Gazette . Canadians applaud this government initiative.
When will the new regulations come into force? And can the minister assure Canadians that retailers will have to remove from their shelves at that time, not one day later, all remaining cigarette lighters that are a danger to children?
Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway May 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, certainly I am very delighted over the last two hours of debate on the motion to have observed a unanimity of hearts and minds on this very crucial issue. I feel a resolve on the part of Parliament not to allow hate in Canada. It is a commitment to a fundamental Canadian value.
On that note, I would appreciate it if you would seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the motion.
Breast Cancer May 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the motion moved by the member for Yukon:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide core funding to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast cancer have access, through survivor led support groups, to information on the various treatments available in their community and local counselling services provided by peer support groups and survivors.
I commend the hon. member for this initiative because it is time that we acknowledged such a need.
Tomorrow a friend of the family is being buried. She died from cancer. Only the privacy of communication would preclude me from mentioning her name. This woman had contributed to the community, to the city of Winnipeg, to women's causes, to the university, and I would say to Canada and the world. In a sense learning of her death was timely in view of the debate on this motion.
It is known that when a patient suffers from any illness the immediate problem is the patient is met with shock. To a woman suffering from cancer that shock is even greater. During shock one of the best sources of support comes from her peers. Let us not underestimate the importance this group of people contribute to patient care.
We need all the information available for that patient to be able to make the informed consent. We equally need the counselling that will come from her peers. Norman Cousins, in The Healing Heart , emphasized the powerful influence of psychological factors in the cure and the care of any patient with cancer or other illness. This is now a recognized medical phenomenon and this motion calls our attention to that very need. I wish Canada had such a centre to study and to focus on the role and the importance of psychological counselling in the care of any patient.
I am told Canada has the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world. Let us hope that one day Canada would be last on the list. Recently in Maclean's magazine I came across the news of a new discovery that we can help to diagnose or anticipate the high incidence of cancer among women. If one demonstrates the increased density through the particular use of a technology, density in the sense that the proportion of the fibrous tissue in
relation to the fat and the glandular elements is more, then there is a high propensity for cancer.
Day in and day out we are developing technology that will allow us to make an early diagnosis, but when a diagnosis of cancer is made for any given woman, all resources must be provided. It is timely that core funding be given. The least we could do is help that individual woman with cancer.
Manitoba May 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, May 12, 1870 marked the entry of Manitoba into Canadian Confederation which we celebrate this week.
Canada and Manitoba have since this union strengthened each other in politics, culture and social and economic prosperity.
We are known for our 100,000 lakes as much as we are known for the multicultural richness of our people, a microcosm of Canada. I am a proud Canadian; I am a proud Manitoban. It has been my privilege to call it home for the past 27 years. Our four sons have known no other home.
Many Manitobans have excelled in various fields of human endeavour in the history of our nation, including a former governor general and a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Manitoba prides itself in being a member of the Canadian family. Please join me in wishing my home province a happy 125th birthday. Welcome to Manitoba.