Ian McClelland

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With unanimous consent may we ask the House to consider it 6.51 p.m.?

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague opposite regarding the legislation, in particular his comment in our other official language which I thought was very well done. While I appreciated the language I sure have a problem with the content.

It is interesting the minister opposite just finished talking about how the employment equity legislation has fairness as its cornerstone, has no quotas and has to do with providing opportunity, not providing opportunity to people specifically because of their race, their gender or the colour of their skin.

Let me read into the record from the employment equity guide of the Department of Justice some of the non-quota targets. The heading of the chart is "New Employment Equity Targets". They are not quotas. They are targets. The legislation will make these targets into quotas because it has penalties for companies that do not meet the target requirements. Somehow that seems like it could be a quota. As a matter of fact the legislation repealing the Ontario employment equity act of 1993 which the Government of Ontario is using is the job quotas repeal act. It is strange, is it not?

In any event I will quote from the employment equity targets in a Department of Justice document: "Women by occupational category, promotions 93 per cent; aboriginal people, promotions 1.7 per cent; persons with disabilities, 2.8 per cent; and visible minorities, 2.7 per cent".

I will continue: "Recruitment for aboriginal peoples, 2.2 per cent; persons with disabilities, 2 per cent; visible minorities, 4.4 per cent. Recruitment for women, 43.8 per cent; administrative, 39.9 per cent; technical, 49.3 per cent".

I ask the minister opposite whether these numbers that are targets have the force of law behind them and a penalty for non-compliance through the equity police of up to $50,000 if companies are not in compliance. What are they? Are they quotas or targets? If this is not a quota, what is?

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned Agnes Macphail. I am presently reading the memoirs of Eugene Forsey. For members who do not recall Eugene Forsey, he was a force of the New Democratic Party. He had a strong ethic for fairness in Canadian society when this was an important thing for people to be doing, as it is today.

In the memoirs of Eugene Forsey he recounts a tale of Agnes Macphail. Members will know that Canadians watching this debate on television do not realize that just outside the Chamber of the House of Commons is a bust of Agnes Macphail. Every time we walk into the opposition lobby we can see the bust of Agnes Macphail.

When Agnes Macphail was at the founding convention of the CCF in Regina in the 1920s there was a motion put forward at the convention in the true socialist manner stating that 50 per cent of all people sitting on committees within the CCF would be women. Women would have employment equity within the party. There would be a balance. No matter what committee it was, 50 per cent of the members would be women.

It was reported by Eugene Forsey that the shortest speech ever made by Agnes Macphail was when she spoke to the convention. She said that she had achieved what she had achieved in her own right, not because she was a woman. It did not work for her and it did not work against her. She wanted to be judged as a person who was capable of achieving her own ends in her own right. She felt that was the appropriate way for all people to be treated.

I thought I would share that little anecdote with members.

I do not suggest that the Liberals have evil motives in bringing this forward. I think their hearts are in the right place, but I do not think their minds are necessarily connected.

I would ask my colleague from Beaver River if she would comment on the notion that perhaps we should be putting our energies into the prevention of discrimination and we should be using the facilities of the country to educate rather than to legislate. What we really have to do is talk about how we can have values in our country, values all Canadians can share, which have to do with the prevention of discrimination and the fact that we are all of us equal Canadians, no matter when we arrived here, no matter the colour of our skin, no matter our gender. We should be addressing the values, we should not be writing laws.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that it is customary and appropriate that we do not make reference to the absence or the attendance of other hon. members.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

That might answer the census question.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the hon. member for Hochelaga for the last couple of years and I know him to be a very earnest, honest, hard working and credible person. I know that when he speaks about this employment equity legislation he is speaking from the heart, that he really does think this will improve society in Canada and prevent discrimination.

I want to ask the hon. member what he thinks will happen as a direct result of this legislation when people who are just as qualified, not more or not less qualified, are denied a job or advancement because of the colour of their skin, because of their race, because of their gender. Does the hon. member feel this will contribute to hard feelings, contribute to discrimination and plant seeds of dissension that would not otherwise be in our society?

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the dissertation by the member opposite representing Halifax, the bastion of public service in Canada.

I remind the member opposite that Canada is not a perfect place for the people she listed in her dissertation, all of the groups that were designated. It is not a perfect place for men either. The world is not a perfect place.

In my experience the drive to perfection is better achieved through education rather than legislation. We cannot legislate tolerance; we can educate tolerance. We cannot legislate wisdom; we can educate wisdom. There are some things the government just plain cannot do. I leave this aside and recognize that this legislation will pass.

Why, if this legislation is so good and so necessary for the public at large, are there two sets of rules? Why do we ask Canadians to do one thing while we do another? Why do we ask Canadians to do with less when we are prepared to accept our pensions the way they are? If this legislation is so good, why does it not extend to the House of Commons?

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the member opposite says he does not believe in quotas he is quite sincere. It does not matter how it is

dressed up. If there is a numerical target that is a quota. It does not matter how it is dressed up, it is a quota.

I ask the member opposite to respond to two brief questions. In his comments earlier the hon. member said it was wrong that a woman should not be able to get a job because she was a woman. Is it also wrong that a man should not get a job because he is a man?

The Department of Justice in its employment equity guidebook uses an employment equity target with a table that specifies the following. It will recruit 2.2 per cent of aboriginal peoples with promotions at 1.1 per cent; 2 per cent of persons with disabilities with promotions at 2.8 per cent; 4.4 per cent of visible minorities with promotions at 2.7 per cent of the total staff. If these are not quotas, what are they?

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

But the Liberals want it now.

[Employment Equity Act, October 5th, 1995]

The member opposite says to extend this. I offer them a challenge: extend employment equity legislation to the House of Commons.