Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to the Reform Party's opposition day motion on employment equity.
The motion states:
That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual, case by case basis.
The Reform Party approaches the issue of employment equity from this principle of the equality of all Canadians. We believe all Canadians are equal regardless of what personal characteristics they possess such as race, ethnicity, sex or what part of the country they live in.
We believe in the equality of opportunity in the marketplace but realize that equality will not necessarily result in equality of results. The concept of our government sponsored employment equity philosophy takes a much different approach.
It seeks to identify specific groups that ostensibly have been discriminated against and are therefore considered disadvantaged. Specifically, it has identified the four groups, women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
I have a number of concerns about the concept of employment equity and about its practical implementation. I want to demonstrate employment equity as such is based on a number of flawed assumptions.
Of great concern to me is that the government purports to support the concept of the equality of all Canadians. Yet this very principle, employment equity, and its underlying philosophy fly directly in the face of the principle of true equality.
How can the principle of equality be respected if some groups are given preferential treatment in hiring, recruitment and promotion in the public or the private sector through employment equity laws and regulation?
This contradiction is best exhibited in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This is a statement in our Constitution on the equality of our citizens and the prohibition of discrimination based on certain characteristics. Yet the contradiction to that philosophy of employment equity is revealed in the next section of the charter, section 15(2):
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
How can the charter of rights and freedoms recognize the equality of Canadian citizens on one hand and then turn around and state that principle of equality does not apply under certain circumstances?
Some argue employment equity is needed because certain portions of our population have been historically disadvantaged. Let me discuss that for a moment.
Prior to 1967 most immigration into Canada was from Europe and caucasian in character. Since that time our immigration patterns have changed, to the better I am sure. Many immigrants from all parts of the world are high wage earners. Most visible minorities in Canada, because of government policies, are either immigrants or children of immigrants. Going back to the original philosophy, how then can they be deemed at an historic disadvantage?
Surveys have shown some visible minority groups are among our highest wage earners. Also, many come from highly advantaged, educated backgrounds and yet are promoted and protected by the employment equity legislation. Conversely, other identifiable groups, ones not included in the visible minority category, have low incomes and may face real discrimination in the marketplace. They are left out of the legislation. They are deemed less than equal because they are not part of what is defined in this group.
The government purports to put forward the concept of numerical goals and employment equity and will go to the wall to say that never are these things to be deemed as quotas or affirmative action.
I will take a few moments to review some of the historical context of the present debate for it sheds much light on the intention and direction of the present legislation.
As early as 1979 the Canada employment and immigration commission established its affirmative action directive as an advisory tool to the department. Then in 1983 the hon. member for Windsor West, then President of the Treasury Board, introduced a mandatory program of affirmative action in the public service. Even at the outset there was a determined refusal not to admit to the real meaning of racially based job quotas. As we hear him say from those days: "The numerical goals we will be introducing as part of the affirmative action are not quotas". Those words are still said today but do they really mean anything?
Of special interest is the 1984 report of the federal royal commission. Judge Abella was the chair and the only member of the commission which produced the report entitled "Equality in Employment". In it the term employment equity appeared for the first time. Abella rejected the older phrase affirmative action on clearly pragmatic grounds.
I quote from the report her reason for using the new term: "No great principle is sacrificed in exchanging phrases of disputed definitions for newer ones that may be more accurate and less destructive of reasoned debate". Obviously a pragmatic choice of words, and for that reason the term employment equity was invented and the term affirmative action was tossed aside.
In addition, the phrase numerical goals used in employment equity legislation is really a euphemism for quotas. Bill C-64, which was recently debated by the human rights commission, incorporates numerical goals or quotas. Clause 10(1)(d) requires employers to incorporate quotas within the employment equity plan. This clause reads that an employer shall establish short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in the designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce in which under-representation has been identified and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those goals.
Another illustration of the quota approach is the Treasury Board's annual report on employment equity in the public service. It outlines in some detail the philosophy of targets or quotas in all aspects of employment, in the recruitment, promotion and even the separation of employees from the employer. It is presented in pure numbers with percentages and totals broken down into a litany of categories. The problem with this approach is that the world is not so neatly configured. Numbers do not reflect the real world.
This leads to a third flat assumption of the employment equity philosophy. If these numerical goals or quotas are not met and consistent with the calculated diversity of our society it is therefore concluded there must be discrimination that is systemic in our society.
Let me discuss the concept of systemic discrimination. Underlying the Abella report and all subsequent legislation has been the conviction that racism in the form of systemic discrimination is rampant in our society.
Abella's report stated: "Non-whites all across Canada complained of racism. They undeniably face discrimination both overt and unjust". This report was from a commission that went across the country.
Who would present themselves to a committee such as that? Would people who are happy in their circumstance go out of their way to present? I do not think so. Perhaps even in this first statement of systemic discrimination we have a distortion.
Is Canada a racist country? Perhaps this would be the strongest argument for an affirmative action program as we see here. We have equity departments throughout the public service and the private sector and race relations councils where individuals come forward to attest to alleged discrimination and racism.
As I have mentioned, typically the people who come forward are self-selected individuals who address these committees. They are motivated by circumstance. Do we hear from the whole population? It is true racism does exist. I believe all societies have an element of racism to some degree. I also believe Canada is by far not the worst. Part of our opposition to this bill is in terms of guarding against a piece of legislation we believe would promote an attitude of racism in the sense of dividing people rather than bringing them together in our great society.
Is racism limited to only one race? Even as the media discusses this issue we hear the terms white and racist put together interchangeably. Even the term reverse discrimination which has been discussed today assumes discrimination goes only one way, from whites to non-whites. I reject that notion. If we look at racism in real terms it can be from one race toward any race. I do not think whites or other races have any particular claim to it.
Is racism real in Canada? It is an element in our society like in any other. Let me cite two reports. The Economic Council of Canada put out a report in 1991, "New Faces in a Crowd: Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration". It concluded Canada had been remarkably successful in assimilating immigrants from diverse backgrounds. It found there was no significant discrimination against immigrants and that tolerance toward immigrants was high and was found to be increasing.
Another report from the Economic Council of Canada in 1992, "Earnings of Immigrants: A Comparative Analysis", focused more on what immigrants were paid. It found unemployment among immigrants was actually lower than for Canadian born citizens. This report's central conclusion was there was no evidence of a systemic pay discrimination against immigrants on the basis of colour.
There is a necessity to recognize diversity in our society. The whole basis of employment equity rests on the raw numbers of diversity. It is argued it should be reflected in employment in the public sector and to a lesser extent in the private sector.
However, the diversity measured by employment equity is measured through a voluntary process called self-identification. Individuals must declare themselves as belonging to a particular group that makes them eligible for employment equity. This can be a very great problem with the proposed system. This information is accumulated primarily through the census of population data. For gender the process is a given, but the self-identification process begins to break down when determining who are visible minorities or who are persons with disabilities.
For instance, to determine if one is a member of a visible minority one has to go through a four-step process as defined by the employment equity data program established by Statistics Canada. Step No. 1: persons are asked which ethnic or cultural group their ancestors belonged to. They are even asked to mark or specify as many as applicable among 15 possible choices. Step No. 2: persons are asked in what country they were born; if Canada, what province or territory; if outside Canada, what other country. Step No. 3: a question is asked about the person's mother tongue. Step No. 4 attempts to group those the first three steps failed to classify.
The process is not foolproof. It does not produce accurate results. It is not precise. It is fully voluntary. Yet it is the foundation of employment equity.
The government uses self-identification for implementation of its employment equity in the public service and here too the process fails miserably. For example, a voluntary self-identification survey was recently sent to 1,700 employees of the House of Commons. Only 23 per cent returned the survey. What basis could the employer use to implement a policy such as employment equity?
There could be a number of other reasons that could explain alleged discrimination. Since self-identification is voluntary it will not be precise. The process, as I have mentioned, is not and should not be foolproof. There are social, cultural and educational explanations that may have an effect upon the disparities in society that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.
A glaring example of the inadequacies of the voluntary self-identification program were illustrated in a letter I read recently in the Globe and Mail of February 28. I would like to read part of it:
Your editorial Time for a Debate on Employment Equity-argues that "Canadians who oppose affirmative action must fight it through the ordinary political process".
But there is a more effective way to fight affirmative action. Those who oppose it should simply indicate on their workforce surveys that they belong to all of the designated groups. If even 10 per cent of those who oppose affirmative action were to do so, then virtually every workforce would be found to be adequately represented for employment equity purposes. This would release employers from the obligation to meet quotas, allowing them to hire the most competent applicants regardless of biology.
Current legislation does not define membership in the designated groups-indeed, membership is mostly subjective. Employers are obligated to accept employees' and applicants' self-identification as being correct. Moreover, workplace surveys are meant to be confidential, and Canadian human rights legislation prohibits employers from requiring employees or job candidates to prove their biological status. So sabotaging the employment equity bureaucracy in the way suggested is arguably not illegal and is certainly without risk to either employees or employers.
Thus the problems associated with a statistical base such as voluntary self-identification cannot be resolved. Therefore the whole basis and foundation for employment equity is seriously flawed and this certainly illustrates it.
The Reform Party believes in the true equality of all Canadians regardless of their personal characteristics. Public opposition to the bill is seen in the upcoming Ontario election where two old line parties have moved closer to our position on the issue.
The government would like us to believe that affirmative action, as it would have it, would eliminate barriers and combat a broad based disadvantage to certain groups. However, I believe that legislative quota programs like employment equity actually confer benefits or impose disabilities because of race and formally divide people into racial definitions and racial mindsets.
Some of the strongest opponents I have heard regarding the legislation have been those familiar with the realities of similar programs elsewhere, such as in South Africa.
Legislated employment equity suggests to everyone, including the individual involved, that the reason they got the job was their race or disability and not their ability or aptitude. Thus this kind of legislation cheapens the accomplishments and efforts of individuals. It degrades individuals by conferring on them a definition of victimhood. It separates Canadians into competing subgroups while putting unnecessary burdens on our national economy and on our good business practice sense.
We have a history of chequered motives and subversive citizenship. We have a program that is based on flawed assumptions of systemic discrimination. We have a denial of a basic principle of merit with the introduction of quotas and numerical goals and coercion and government interference through reports, fines and intrusive government practices.
Our position as a country will best be served in the global economy by market demands in the places of employment. Our future and unity as a country will be best assured by ensuring true equality of Canadians, not by job quotas but by the equality of the personhood and the real abilities of all Canadians.
In summary, employment equity is seriously flawed and conceptually flawed in practice. I encourage Canadians to express their views on employment equity and Bill C-64 with which Parliament is currently dealing.
