Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the dissertations by my hon. colleagues opposite.
At the outset, I want to make it very clear on behalf of my party that we do not ascribe any negative motive to the Liberals for bringing this legislation forward. As a matter of fact, we think they probably in their heart of hearts think they are doing the right thing. We just think it is stupid, unnecessary and counterproductive.
We do not ascribe any motive that would be negative to them other than the fact that in their heart of hearts they wished they lived in a perfect world but we do not. We cannot make a perfect world through legislation. It might be possible to advance the world to perfection through education, but there are some things in life which just plain cannot be satisfied through legislation and this is one of them.
Regrettably, the underlying foundation of employment equity or affirmative action in our country presupposes that Canadians in some way or another are now, have been and will be a systemically
meanspirited lot of people who discriminate against others. That is not true. It is not the case.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. minister opposite made reference to members of the business community being in favour of employment equity and that those who came to the committee said so. When people are invited to make a submission before a committee on something like employment equity, what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to say that they do not believe in the notion of employment equity and that they would just as soon discriminate against people? That is just not the case.
Our country's business community is very progressive. It is way ahead of the government. As a matter of fact, the average business has never seen a visitor from the employment equity police for the legislation that is now in place. Most Canadians, including most Canadian businesses, do what they do out of enlightened self-interest. As I mentioned the other day, there is nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest; it gets the job done.
In my few minutes today I would like to try to rebut some of the arguments made in favour of affirmative action or employment equity and also to give a sense of what this legislation might mean as it gets its iron grip on Canadian society.
The most significant provision of Bill C-64 results in the legislated mandate of affirmative action for the federal public service, including the RCMP, the military, public security agencies, federally chartered businesses and any business of 100 or more employees that does business with the federal government. That is quite a collection of people. Imagine the number of equity police that will be required to police that to make sure it is working.
The nature of this proposed legislation is intrusive into the marketplace. Under the proposed legislation an employer is obliged to submit an employment equity compliance audit by an officer acting on behalf of the human rights commission.
Based on the results of such an audit, the Canadian Human Rights Commission may direct that an employer comply with the provisions of the Employment Equity Act. Failure to comply with such a directive renders an employer subject to a fine at the initiative of the minister responsible for the administration of the Employment Equity Act of up to $50,000. The responsible minister has not yet been determined but we assume it will be the minister of human resources.
It is important to note though that the term employment equity will be heard from the Liberal side and the Bloc, but you will hear members from this side using the term affirmative action. Liberals are slow to use the term affirmative action because that term is not particularly well regarded even by those who were purported to have been helped by affirmative action 30 or 40 years ago primarily in the United States.
In the last election in Ontario, the notion of affirmative action was roundly discarded when the New Democrats were thrown out of office by the Conservatives. They said in large part in their election mandate that they were going to get rid of the employment equity law.
That really causes one to wonder why the Liberal government opposite would introduce this legislation at this time. Giving credit where credit is due, the Liberals believe in their heart of hearts that what they are doing is the right thing, that they will go ahead regardless. Dam the torpedoes because the torpedoes surely will be in the water at the next election when they are trying to explain why they introduced reverse discrimination and codified it throughout the land.
Through this legislation the Liberals will have planted the seeds of resentment that will burn in the bellies of the thousands and thousands of people who will be denied opportunity that is rightly theirs. They will be denied that opportunity because there is a quota for others determined by race, by gender. People will look at that and ask: Is this a free country? Is this what is meant in article 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms where it explicitly states that all Canadians are equal regardless of race, creed or gender? Of course the next paragraph says, except for designated groups, which then allows legislation of this type to come forward.
The foundation for the notion of affirmative action versus employment equity was really made about 10 years ago by Judge Rosalie Abella. The royal commission recommended employment equity legislation rather than affirmative action legislation because affirmative action and the term affirmative action had been so widely discarded because it just plain does not work.
It is important to keep this in mind. You can dress this baby up any way you want but it does not matter what kind of cook you are, you cannot make mutton taste like lamb. If it is not lamb, it is never going to be lamb. You cannot dress it up in any way. It is a tough old bird that is not going to fly.
There is a suggestion from this side of the House that employment equity or affirmative action legislation really does involve social engineering and forced acceleration of the effects of demographic change. I am going to present an interesting set of statistics.
Canada's demographics are changing rapidly. The make-up and composition of this House is not representative of the changing demographics of our country today. If we look around us in the House, the vast majority of people representing constituencies of the Liberals, of the Bloc and of the Reform Party are white,
middle-age males. That is not our fault; it is changing. It is changing slowly, but it is changing.
According to the 1991 census, 9 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or over, or 1.9 million people were visible minorities. Of the 9 per cent or the 1.9 million people who were visible minorities in Canada, only 15 per cent were born in Canada. Very few of the visible minorities that live in Canada today were born in Canada. Thirty-five per cent of the visible minorities in our country have arrived since 1983. Sixty-seven per cent of all visible minorities in Canada have arrived since 1972.
In a relatively short period of time in the 130 years or so that Canada has been a nation, the changing demographics of our country in visible minorities has only really been apparent in the last 30 years. To suggest that there is systemic discrimination in our country is wrong. We have not had the chance to have systemic discrimination.
The demographic composition of employees at all levels in a country which is 128 years old cannot be radically changed as a result of demographic social change over 30 years, and most significantly within the last 12 years. These changes will occur, but it will take at least one or two generations, if allowed to occur without legislative compulsion. As I said before, if we look at the demographics of the House of Commons, we will see that is the case.
Attempting a statistical matching for equity purposes, that is, x per cent of a particular race means that x per cent of that race must be in an occupation for there to be equity, involves the unreasonable assumption that the extent of association to Canada and the extent of Canadian work experience are irrelevant to workforce entitlement or promotion considerations. Does it not make sense if people have been in Canada and have participated in the labour force that their participation rate and their advancement rate would be higher based on the amount of time they have been here or their familiarity with Canada?
That does not mention the fact that all of the government agencies covered by this bill and many private contractors are covered by unions in which people have problems moving up and out and being hired or fired based on the unions. It has nothing to do with management, it has to do with the union. It has to do with whether a person is in the door first.
Let us talk about goals and targets. Let us ask ourselves: Are goals targets and are they quotas by another name? Exception was taken to the fact that members on this side of the House referred to goals as being quotas. Under the Employment Equity Act an employer is not required to hire or promote unqualified persons. It says that right in the legislation and I acknowledge that. Employers are not required to hire or promote unqualified persons or to create new positions in the workforce. The Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot impose a quota on an employer where a quota is defined as a requirement to hire or promote a fixed or arbitrary number of persons during a given period.
However, the other shoe is about to drop. 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 designated groups are established plus longer term goals for increasing the representation.
What a minute. Just a second. Hold it. Did I not just say the act says they cannot have quotas? Wait a minute, it does say they can establish numerical goals. But what is a numerical goal if not a quota?
If in the opinion of the human rights commission investigator an employer has not made reasonable efforts the employer can be fined $50,000. It sounds like a quota to me. If it looks like a quota, sounds like a quota, acts like a quota and the results of it are like a quota, the chances are it is a quota. It does not matter whether we call it employment equity; it is still affirmative action. It does not matter if we call it a goal or a numerical target. If it restricts the number and the access by number, it is a quota. That is all it can possibly be.
Just in case there is a possibility someone thinks that quotas are not already in force in the Government of Canada hiring practices, just try getting hired by the RCMP, as a constituent in Edmonton tried. Barry Ceminchuk who lives in Edmonton called me and said: "Please talk about my problem. I wanted to get a job with the RCMP. They will not even take my application". The RCMP will not even take it and he has done some digging.
This is information from the employment equity guide from the Department of Justice. Is that not amazing, there is an employment equity guide from the Department of Justice.
For those of you out there in television land, when the census comes next time and you are wondering why they are asking what race you are, all of a sudden the light will come on. The reason people want to know your race is so they can check out demographically whether or not the companies in the local areas are hiring enough people of the various races located in that geographic area. That is why that question is there.
This is from the Department of Justice, and we do not have quotas here folks, but we do have employment equity targets. In the spring of 1991 Treasury Board introduced a new target setting strategy as a means for achieving the equitable representation and distribution of designated group members in the department. The new strategy is flow based, which means that it focuses on an
equitable share of recruitment and promotions of designated groups.
It goes on to list the groups and then states what its non-quota quota goals are for women. For scientific and professional: recruitment, 43.8 per cent; promotions, 43.6 per cent. For administrative and foreign service: 39.9 per cent for recruitment and 66 per cent for promotions. If you happen to be a woman in the Department of Justice in an administrative or support position, you have it made, but you had better not be male because women are going to get 93 per cent of the promotions.
We hear clapping from the opposite side. It has nothing to do with whether they are the best qualified but they are going to get it because of their gender. That is absolutely wrong.
My daughter is a totally capable person in her own right. She just goes up and down a wall every time somebody thinks that she has got somewhere or she has a job because she is a woman, because of employment equity or affirmative action. She is an electrical engineer and works in a male dominated field. My daughter achieved what she achieved because she is a damn good electrical engineer. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is a damn good engineer. She just goes crazy when those feminists say she is a victim. She is not a victim.
In any event let us keep talking. Let us talk about qualified versus best qualified. The legislation says in clause 6 that an employer cannot be required to hire or promote unqualified persons. However, the other shoe drops. At the same time, an employer is not free to hire the best qualified as a matter of course. The concept of best qualified does not reflect systemic prejudices. Subjectivity in hiring is largely eliminated under this legislation. Attitudes cannot be legislated.
I am getting a fair amount of static from my friends opposite. They are most uncomfortable because they will soon be standing to justify this draconian legislation.
