Jay Hill

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, despite the very late hour I will try to return a little sanity to the debate.

Bill C-41, the sentencing bill before us, has some fundamental flaws. It seems the drafters could not decide what is the real purpose of sentencing. Should we base the prison term on the seriousness of the crime or the identity of the victim? Are alternative measures desirable because our jails are full or because it is more likely that criminals in community service programs are less likely to reoffend?

Certainly a structured program in open custody may be a preferable alternative to incarceration for a first time offender, especially if it is more for a minor property offence and genuine remorse is shown.

Is it appropriate for repeat offenders whether against property or people? Section 717 leaves alternative measures wide open. There are no limitations on which types of crime should be excluded. If it is primarily intended to empty our jails of the people who fail to pay their fines then say so. If it is supposed to provide an alternative for first time offenders who do not belong with hardened criminals then say so, but do not leave it wide open.

Who gets to decide which self-admitted criminal will benefit from alternative measures? In section 717(b) the bill only says a person. This means someone other than a judge may decide which criminals avoid court and a criminal conviction.

Why is the government reluctant to exclude habitual or violent offenders from alternative measures? Is it afraid of a charter challenge by murderers who would claim that their rights are being violated? If they are denied alternative measures, will lawyers try to tie up the courts with appeals and challenges to any decision to proceed in the courts?

If the government does not have the courage to restrict eligibility for alternative measures perhaps we must reconsider whether alternative measures should be available at all. As legislators we have a responsibility to society to make the tough decisions about which types of crime or offenders should be eligible.

A condition of people's eligibility under section 717 is admitting to their crime. However, after admitting to an offence, they are henceforth referred to as persons alleged to have committed an offence. There is no trial. They are never convicted of a crime. They are not called an offender and therefore have no criminal record. Furthermore their admission of guilt cannot be used against them in any future court proceedings. Alternative measures represent the ultimate plea bargaining dream for lawyers. Now they can admit to a crime, there is no conviction, and the records are buried after two years.

I quote from section 717.1:

-regardless of the degree of their compliance with the terms and conditions of the alternative measures.

Something is very wrong with the sentencing bill. Section 717 needs to be fixed or struck.

Another seriously flawed section is 718 which outlines the purposes and principles of sentencing. Noticeably absent from the list is the concept of punishment. For example, under section 718(a) one objective is: "to denounce unlawful conduct". What is that supposed to mean? Breaking the law is not nice? Why do we not say that one objective is to punish unlawful conduct?

Under section 718(b) the objective is: "to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences". I find it encouraging that the government considers alternative measures such as raking leaves at the local park deterrents. At the same time it totally denies the deterrent value of capital punishment in the case of first degree murder. Which would give a person greater pause: the prospect of three square meals a day, leisure time and the opportunity to pursue a university degree behind bars, or the death penalty?

The objective of section 718(d) is: "to assist in rehabilitating offenders", which represents a clear indictment of our rehabilitation record. Why not simply say to rehabilitate offenders? Why qualify it? If we admit that they are not rehabilitated, that incarceration alone is not working and that we know they are going to reoffend, why are we letting them out? Is that consistent with public safety?

The drafters of the bill failed to realize that incarceration by itself does not punish or rehabilitate people. Likewise acknowledgement of one's actions is not the same thing as guilt or remorse. Let us face it, the real reason we are trying alternative measures is that the government is finally willing to admit the current prison system is not working. If the government can prove recidivism rates are lower with community service and open custody, why are the same principles of work and restitution to society not being applied during incarceration? What is wrong with making able bodied prisoners work?

The new Ontario government is contemplating workfare for welfare recipients. The bill advocates labour in the community, but the government is afraid it will be denying the rights of hardened criminals if they have to work to help compensate for their room and board in prison. Perfecting their golf swing or learning new safe cracking techniques from fellow inmates is hardly constructive or liable to contribute to rehabilitation or reintegration.

Why can we advocate labour for people in open custody but not for those in closed custody? Society should not fear the concept of punishment. Instead we seem to extend more rights to criminals than to victims. At last count Clifford Olsen had launched 32 frivolous lawsuits at taxpayers' expense. Instead of helping to support the cost of their upkeep and learning the habit of working every day, other felons like him go on strike over the quality of their food.

In section 718.2 the government completely departs from the previous implicit admission that our jails are crowded and incarceration as now practised is not working. Suddenly the government advocates putting people behind bars for longer periods, not based on the seriousness of the crime but on the physical attributes or the sexual preferences of the victim.

I find it ironic that in section 717 the government refuses to list which crimes are eligible for alternative measures, leaving it open to anything from car theft to murder. However when we turn to section 718.2 suddenly the government feels the need to create a list. If the aggravating and mitigating circumstances apply to everyone equally why is there a list of special considerations?

After letters opposing the new gun control legislation, the second highest number of letters I have received from my constituents concern the inclusion of the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the list of aggravating circumstances found in the bill. They do not want special rights extended to Canadians based on their sexual preferences, and that is what section 718.2 appears to do.

If the government caves in to special interest groups and political correctness then it should call a spade a spade.

By including the phrase sexual orientation the government is trying to deter gay bashing by heterosexuals. By leaving it undefined it can also include other sexual orientations such as pedophilia and necrophilia.

Liberal colleagues across the way will say that pedophilia is a crime in Canada. Yes, it is. A recent court decision said that sodomy with a 14-year-old was legal, but under section 718.2 if someone punches a pedophile he could receive a harsher sentence even though pedophilia is illegal under Canada's laws.

Canadians want equality. Sexual orientation has been the lightning rod for Bill C-41. Even if it were defined or removed, the fundamental premise of section 718.2 is flawed. Canadians

should be equal before the law and section 718.2 must be deleted in its entirety.

If we change a basic sentence in principle and emphasize the identity of the victim more than the severity of the crime, we will truly be on that slippery slope. The rule of law requires proof, not conjecture. Regrettably prejudice exists in Canada, but creating false inequalities through arbitrary criminal sentencing will hardly address the problem. If anything, it will increase intolerance by creating the justifiable perception that some groups are getting preferential treatment under the law.

In conclusion, justice is supposed to be blind. We all grew up with the image of the blindfolded woman holding the scales. Why do criminals not receive the same sentence for the same crime based on the seriousness of the offence, no matter what group the victim belongs to? Are some Canadian lives worth more or less than others? Prejudice, bias and hatred must be addressed through other mechanisms. It is not the role of the courts to implement the government's social engineering agenda.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had not chosen to enact time allocation I am sure all of us would have enjoyed hearing the remainder of the hon. member's speech on this issue. He can thank his own party for cutting him off in that sense.

We are talking about effectiveness of this impending legislation. Every time we try to raise concerns about it in this House we are accused of trafficking in fiction. The government says that the people of Canada have to trust it. It will draft these regulations. We have not seen what they are yet. We have to trust the government that once it gets the regulations in place it will effectively address the issues.

I want to briefly read into the record the following:

Registration pertains to things-guns in this case-not people. It records the description, serial number and ownership of each item or weapon. For extremely lethal and easily hidden weapons such as handguns-which in Canada are restricted and of which there are relatively few-it is a workable and relatively effective system that screens owners and weapons alike and inhibits casual purchase. However, for the ten million long guns in Canada I believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in comparison with its potential benefits.

This quote was from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Hansard , Commons debates, page 12627, April 8, 1976, the hon. member who currently sits as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice. This is the very hypocrisy Canadians are concerned about, where members seem to change their opinion. They are concerned that this legislation will be simply one more step in the ongoing erosion of the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. I would like to hear the hon. members address that concern from Canadians.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Or they might come to the home.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was voting in favour of the motion and I inadvertently got a vote ahead. I want to make sure that my name was not recorded twice in error.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on Bill C-68 this evening. I say it is a pleasure because I am one of only three Reform MPs who has had the opportunity to address the House on this very important piece of legislation three times in the past. The first time was at second reading, the second time was on the Reform amendment to split the bill which was also at second reading before the government enacted time allocation and the third time is tonight.

As has already been said by many of my colleagues, we find it absolutely deplorable that on such a crucial piece of legislation which has elicited such high emotions across the land, we find the government has yet again enacted time allocation at report stage and at third reading.

The government limited the debate at second reading and forced the bill to the committee. It gave assurances that all of the pertinent facts, data and arguments could be brought forward at committee. Today in arguments put forward by Liberal members we were questioned why we were bringing forward these amendments at report stage. We were asked why we wanted, in their words, to tie up the House debating this legislation when we could have done it at committee stage. Those of us who participated at committee stage know that the exact opposite happened. There simply was not time to adequately address all of the concerns.

The Liberals limited the number of witnesses who could appear before the committee. Today I heard that while all MPs had the opportunity to appear before the committee they were limited to five minutes to make their points. As anyone who has ever made a public address knows, five minutes goes very quickly, especially when one is trying to make points on as many issues as are encompassed by this comprehensive piece of legislation known as Bill C-68.

Bill C-68 is a very detailed, lengthy and intricate piece of legislation with some 132 clauses in the firearms act and amendments to another 100 sections in part III of the Criminal Code. For the government to suggest we can get through that and bring forward all the pertinent points by concerned constituents and concerned Canadians across this land in a few hours of debate is absolutely ludicrous.

I find it deplorable that the government would enact time allocation and ram this through the House. That is exactly what is happening tonight. It is exactly what will be happening in a day or two when we are limited to six hours of debate at third reading as well.

I would like to speak about our amendment at second reading stage to split the bill. The Reform Party feels very strongly that we are dealing with two completely separate issues in Bill C-68. One issue is further regulation and restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners. The second issue is what to do and how to get

tough with criminals who misuse firearms and actually use them as weapons.

It is interesting to note that one of the Liberal members earlier today suggested an amendment to actually change the name of the act to "an act respecting firearms and other related matters" rather than "an act respecting firearms and other weapons" as it is presently named. I would certainly support that amendment.

As I have travelled throughout my riding, a lot of people have expressed concern that people do not differentiate between a firearm and a weapon. It is an important distinction to law-abiding firearm owners that a firearm is only a weapon at such time as it is used in the commission of a criminal offence. Prior to that it is simply viewed to many people as a tool, or something used in a hobby if they are a shooter. It is not considered by them to be a weapon. It is merely private property. It is an important distinction.

Some of my colleagues have talked about the fact that what we are discussing here is the fourth group of amendments. It is interesting to note that we are being asked to debate in a few short hours some 267 amendments to this legislation. How can we do that justice? How can we adequately debate the pros and cons of those individual amendments? We simply cannot. For the purpose of debate some of them have been grouped. Group No. 4, for example, which we are currently debating has 33 individual motions. How can we do them justice and adequately discuss them in that short time frame?

I am very concerned with the erosion of democracy. The Reform Party feels very strongly that the primary purpose of members of Parliament, which I have spoken about before in the House, is to properly and effectively represent the wishes, concerns and views of the majority of their constituents where that view can be ascertained.

How can I do that? I have made that point as well. How can I do that on this piece of legislation when it deals with two distinctly separate issues?

The constituents of Prince George-Peace River have made it very obvious to me that they want to get tough with criminals. They want to bring in tougher sanctions on the criminal elements in the country. Therefore I support the part of the legislation that deals with the amendments to part III of the Criminal Code.

At the same time my constituents are telling me that they want to have no part of registration. Why do they not want to have registration? We hear ludicrous arguments that we register our dogs and our cars so why should we not register our firearms?

They are concerned for three main reasons. One is the cost and we have talked about that before. They are concerned about the paperwork time and the cost to police forces that are already stretched to the limit. Hundreds and thousands of useless hours will be spent compiling the information.

We pointed out in committee as well as in the House that the mailing system proposal of the justice minister will not work. How can a firearm be identified if it is not actually physically seen and inspected? It is interesting to note that Quebec has indicated that it wants $300 million if the government goes ahead to administer the registration program in that province. Yet the justice minister is still clinging to his $85 million total cost, which is obviously far from accurate.

Constituents are concerned and law-abiding gun owners are concerned about the cost recovery that has been bandied about from the other side. What will that mean in the future? What will the costs of paying an annual ownership fee amount to if they want cost recovery?

The second issue in addition to cost is the security of the list that some of my colleagues have addressed. I spoke about it earlier in the House. Will this not provide a shopping list for criminals? We all know that hackers break into computer systems practically on a daily basis across the nation and around the world. If they can break into IBM and can break into the Pentagon, what makes the justice minister think they will not be able to break into this computer system to get a hold of the list? It will provide criminals with a list of where the firearms are and what types of firearms they are so that they can steal the firearms they want to use. It will also by omission provide them with a list of what homes in which communities do not have firearms and therefore the home owners are defenceless.

The third issue on registration is future confiscation with which some of my colleagues have dealt. Above all is the statement that it will not be effective. New Zealand, Australia and other countries have tried it. I note that draconian gun controls brought into effect in the United Kingdom in 1988 were followed by dramatic increases in crimes involving firearms. They were not effective. It has been proven around the world that registration and stiffer gun controls are not effective.

I will make a point, which my constituents make to me on almost a daily basis, to the Liberals opposite because they will know about it pretty soon. There is another election before registration becomes mandatory and the voters will be there to remind them about this legislation.

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon and support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan.

Twenty-five years ago the first Official Languages Act was passed, as has been noted. Since that time we have never fully reviewed its operation to see if this multibillion dollar ship is taking us where we want to go.

In 1988 the act was revised incorporating three main objectives: first, to ensure the equal status of the two official languages; second, to support the development of official language minority communities; and third, to set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions in this area.

To ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the act, a commissioner of official languages has been appointed. His job is to protect language rights of individuals and groups, evaluate linguistic performance of federal institutions and monitor the advancement of French and English. In other words, the commissioner's mandate is to promote the act, not to evaluate its effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the auditor general has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the act during its entire 25 year evolution. This is a serious flaw.

What we do have is a series of reports, studies and audits of particular aspects of the act. Nobody has looked at the whole thing. Even if problems are identified, no one has the mandate to change aspects of it that are not working.

For example, in past annual reports the commissioner has repeatedly criticized the failure of the government to communicate the basic purpose of the act to the Canadian people. In the words of the commissioner, this has resulted in negative hearsay and durable falsehoods. Despite being over two decades old, Canadians still do not even understand why the act exists. Something is definitely wrong, but the commissioner is not empowered to fix it.

The commissioner's 1993 annual report notes that the Canadian solution to the co-existence of two dominant languages is focused on individual rights rather than the establishment of a territorial linguistic regime. This means the intention of the act is to ensure Canadians can receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice regardless of where they happen to live.

During 1993 the office of the commissioner completed its own study of individual choice versus territoriality in the implementation of language rights. Again I quote: "The study concluded that Canada has struck its own balance between individual rights and territoriality, and has done so as a function of its own history and specific human needs".

Despite the fact that the act is not supposed to be territorial in nature, government services in both languages are not universally available, only where there is significant demand and where it is reasonable, logical and fair to do so. This makes some sense but it does not meet the demands of individual complainants who believe their rights to full services under the act have been violated.

Each province implements the act differently. This means the results are also measurably different in each province. Is this a failure of the act or was this the original intention? If we do not review the act nationwide, how do we know whether the overall objectives are feasible or even desirable?

The 1993 report began with a quote from Montesquieu: "Nothing is just merely because it forms part of the law; rather, it should be law because it is just". The Official Languages Act is the law but if we do not examine it impartially and thoroughly how can we know that it is just?

One example of a perceived failure illustrates this point. Many minority official languages communities are upset because they do not receive services of comparable quality to those afforded to the majority. Perhaps this is neither realistic nor affordable. Perhaps we should be looking at providing services of adequate quality rather than comparable quality. No

one is looking at alternative solutions to these problems. The commissioner's role is to pursue the goal of comparable services, not to question whether that goal is attainable.

The Spicer commission studied Canadians' perceptions of the Official Languages Act. One participant: "Being able to speak both English and French should be a worthwhile personal goal for all citizens of Canada. It is also an achievable goal, if only the politicians had the courage to admit that the language policies they have been advocating for the past two decades failed miserably and left the country deeply divided. It is time to scrap the enforced bilingualism policy and heal the wounds".

As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, another participant in the citizens' forum on Canada's future stated: "Pierre Trudeau's vision of a multicultural and bilingual society for Canada was a noble one, but it is apparent now that it will simply not work".

We are certainly a more bilingual country than we were in 1969, but we are far from achieving the goals of the act and it has been in operation for more than a generation. Surely if the act was workable we would have met most, if not all, of the goals by now.

The list of failures is long. We have failed to achieve equity in the language of work in federal institutions. We have failed to communicate the basic purpose of the act to Canadians. As a result, the act does not enjoy universal support. As I already stated, it has failed to provide comparable quality services to minority official languages communities. It has failed to establish universal access to services in the language of choice resulting in territoriality playing a significant role.

After 25 years why has the official languages policy failed to meet virtually all of its objectives? Without an independent review of the fundamental principles, structure and implementation regimes we will never know. We will merely continue to add to the list of failures because questioning the goals or the means of achieving them is beyond the mandate of the commissioner.

Let us compare the Official Languages Act to a sailing ship under Christopher Columbus. The office of the commissioner has certain tasks to perform, such as investigating complaints, auditing specific federal departments of compliance and ensuring implementation of minority language education programs. These are like the specific tasks of sailors to mend the sails, scrub the decks or feed the crew.

Every once in a while the auditor general comes along and performs an audit on a discreet part of the ship such as his 1991 audit of the translation bureau. This is like lowering a sailor over the side of the ship to chip off a few barnacles rather than checking the integrity of the hull. We fix one or two problems with the sails, replace some lines and bail out the bilge, but no one has looked at the whole ship. We are so concerned with the day to day operations and studying the individual components that no one has looked to see where the ship is going.

Columbus knew his mission was to get to the far east and he fixed the little leaks along the way, but after two months under sail he ended up in America instead. If we do not completely review the act, how can we be sure we will achieve the stated objectives? More important, how do we know our national objectives have not changed?

Right now we do not even know if we are still going in the right direction because we have not done one comprehensive audit in 25 years. Remember, his sails were repaired regularly but Christopher Columbus was not even in the right ocean, let alone on course.

I urge all members to support this motion to conduct a thorough review of the act. We may not all agree on where we think the official languages ship should be headed, but an independent auditor could make sure we are at least sailing in the direction supported by the majority of the crew, in this case the Canadian taxpayers who continue to foot the bill.

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

When?

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear this question in my riding. I know it is a real source of irritation with Canadians in the riding of Prince George-Peace River. I suspect if we were to do a survey across the country we would find that people right across the nation find it offensive that they are required to document their lineage or history when they want to be classed as Canadians. They find it very demeaning.

That is why so many people will just put down Canadian, regardless of what type of form StatsCan may come up with. People are telling me they want to be classed as a Canadian. They are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. This can be seen most predominantly with the new immigrants who came here recently and went through the process of getting their citizenship papers and becoming a citizen of Canada. Those people in particular do not want to be associated with the past. They want to be classed as Canadians. That is how they want to be thought of and treated. It is how they feel they should be treated when they apply for a job in the Canadian workforce.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will not use the 20 minutes.

I welcome this opportunity to rise in debate and support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East.

I am becoming more and more concerned about the direction in which the government is taking Canada. The Liberal government seems to think that it can legislate Canadian values and social change. History proves that imposed solutions do not gain broad acceptance. They are viewed with suspicion.

From the mail I receive, the mindset that dominates Ottawa's policy shifts does not appear to reflect the values or convictions of most Canadians living outside a few metropolitan centres. In fact, I am not even sure it reflects the views of most people living in Toronto or Ottawa.

This government is promoting the idea that society is responsible for what people do with their lives. Somehow personal achievement no longer has anything to do with individual merit, initiative or effort but has more to do with whether one falls into this government's definition of a group it has singled out for special treatment. This is a misguided attempt to right past wrongs. When I was young I was taught that two wrongs do not make a right. Evidently Liberals have not learned that lesson.

Reform believes in equality of opportunity. Given the same educational and employment opportunities, whether an individual succeeds should be largely up to them. Each person must

accept responsibility for what they choose to do with their life, be it pursuing a life of crime or having a lower standard of living while they put themselves through university. When they get out of school they have a right to expect equal treatment when they look for work. Preferential treatment on the basis of your skin colour is just as racist as discrimination. Employment equity is by definition discrimination and therefore against the law.

Social change cannot be legislated. Previous Liberal attempts at social engineering have been disastrous and have created greater divisiveness in Canadian society. Past Liberal legislation gave us multiculturalism which promotes our differences instead of our similarities. It makes us hyphenated Canadians and asks us to define ourselves in terms of skin colour, country of our ancestors or, if all other categorizations fail, language. We are not allowed to be just Canadian. The government does not believe such a person exists.

Now that multiculturalism has made us focus on our differences the government wants to institutionalize inequality and preferential treatment. It wants to further divide the workforce with a quota system that will replicate an artificial division of the Canadian people based on arbitrary characteristics unrelated to their ability to do the job. Equity is not equality.

The hon. member for Western Arctic said earlier today special treatment is not a departure from equality. How can special treatment of entire designated groups lead to equality? Special treatment by its very nature is not equality.

The same member said same treatment does not create equality. I agree with that but not for the same reasons she said. Canadians should be guaranteed equal opportunities. These include education, equal employment opportunities and the right not to be discriminated against for reasons unrelated to their qualifications.

As the member must agree, given her own achievements, even when we all receive the same treatment we do not all follow the same paths in life. We do not end up running a corner bakery or a multinational corporation, at least not all of us. We are different and we do not all share the same goals. Siblings end up in entirely different lines of work and levels of employment despite the same treatment. Equal opportunity does not always lead to equal results.

Every time the government decides there is a problem it tries to solve it with more government regulations and inappropriate misguided legislation. We see the same philosophy of over regulation in the Liberal approach to crime control. Instead of specifically targeting gun smugglers and criminals who misuse firearms the government will force all gun owners to register. This shotgun approach to problems does not work. It creates more jobs for bean counters while the government desperately hopes a criminal will register a gun or in the case of employment equity a prejudiced employer will incriminate themselves when filling out paper work.

I completely support the elimination of discrimination but we cannot legislate attitudes and we cannot create equality through legislation. Go after the law breakers. Do not make more rules and red tape that do not directly address the problem. Social engineering does not work.

Canadians want equality, not more groups with special rights and privileges. Canadians want to end discrimination, not extend it on a scale only the Liberal government could conceive. Canadians want to succeed based on their personal merit and achievements, not on the colour of their skin or some other arbitrary classification the government has decided on.

A policy of employment equity will lead to inequality. It will increase intolerance in our society and it will lead to greater misunderstandings between people. The elimination of intolerance and discrimination in society is a desirable objection.

I question the way the government is going about it. I see the end result as more intolerance. With employment equity how will anyone in a designated group ever be certain they got where they did because of their own efforts and hard work? Even if they know they earned every promotion and every raise, how do they convince jealous naysayers? When someone is bypassed for a promotion will they believe it is because the other person deserved it or will they blame employment equity? Will employers be forced to defend every decision they make?

With employment equity every promotion will be viewed with suspicion, whether it is because the person was in a designated group and other employees challenged their qualifications or because the person was not in a designated group and the government wants to know why the company did not promote a designated person instead.

Private industry should have the right to hire whomever it wants. However, I fully support prosecution where there is evidence of systemic discrimination. No one should face discrimination in the workforce. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of personal merit. While it is true we have not completely stamped out prejudice, there are other ways of dealing with unfair hiring practices besides enforcing a quota system. We should enforce laws which specifically target people who engage in discriminatory hiring practices or employment conditions.

By promoting employment equity the Liberal government has admitted it has no faith these designated groups can make it on merit alone and so it will coerce companies using quotas and monetary penalties. Will such measures lead to even more intolerance as a few disgruntled workers wrongly seize on employment equity as the reason they were bypassed for a raise they thought they deserved?

Once again the government is promoting disunity by highlighting differences instead of similarities. By forcing employees to self-identify as a member of a designated group the government perpetuates differences and, more important, the perception of differences. An employment equity program forces people to focus on the very things the government says it is trying to eliminate. We want our society to disregard characteristics not relevant to someone's ability to do their job, but the government wants employers to emphasize those characteristics as somehow related to whether someone should get a promotion.

Companies will begin to look at employees as a number on the way to fulfilling a particular quota, not as individual human beings with dreams, families and abilities which transcend the designation the Liberal government has imposed on them. As the hon. member for Halifax stated earlier today in the House, we cannot legislate attitudes. That is our point.

Canadians would support the elimination of discrimination and prejudice in the workplace but they cannot support a costly social engineering project which will institutionalize discrimination and promote employment opportunities based on physical attributes. Employment equity is not workable. It can lead only to more intolerance and misunderstanding.

It is reassuring to see the government's commitment to creating a fair job market. All Canadians want a level playing field on which excellence is promoted. However, a look at the government's current legislation shows a fundamental weakness. It stops one step short of the top. One would expect the government would seek to lead by example, so it is somewhat baffling that Bill C-64 applies to every government department except the office of the Prime Minister.

If the House really sees affirmative action as a way to promote excellence, one would think it would rush to embrace its application in the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister's office plays a large role not only in shaping the agenda of government and of Parliament but in shaping public opinion. If the government really believes affirmative action programs attract personnel of the highest calibre, it naturally follows the principles of Bill C-64 should apply to the Prime Minister's office.

Clause 4(1)(b) of the bill seeks to apply affirmative action to the portions of the Public Service of Canada set out in part I of schedule 1 to the Public Service Relations Act. Schedule 1 is a fairly inclusive list of government departments and agencies and includes the office of the governor general's secretary, which provides policy and program assistance in the office of His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada. It includes the privy council office, which provides policy advice and analysis to the office of the Prime Minister and to cabinet.

When I note Bill C-64 applies to the office of the governor general's secretary and to the privy council office, I am sure it must be simply an oversight that the Prime Minister's office is not covered.

Members will surely understand that if we intend to ensure the promotion of true equity in the workplace we must start at the top. If it is our goal to show Canadians that government now holds high the torch of equality, what better way than to apply Bill C-64 to the Prime Minister's office? Applying Bill C-64 to the Prime Minister's office would show all Canadians leadership truly starts at the top.

The Prime Minister's office could serve as an example to other departments in showing how an enlightened affirmative action program could contribute to an enhanced work environment, foster harmonious workplace relations and harness the benefits proponent of the increased employment diversity promise.

The application of Bill C-64 to the PMO would further produce a number of side benefits. It would give the Prime Minister a true hands on experience both in devising and implementing a productive affirmative action strategy in a medium sized $5.5-odd million office. The Prime Minister's office would get a true first hand view of the increased administrative burden, if any, caused by this act. That experience would undoubtedly prove useful if further amendments to this bill were ever needed. Further participation by the Prime Minister's office would give the Prime Minister enhanced credibility when selling Bill C-64 to Canadian employers.

The Prime Minister would get valuable insight into the practical benefits and, more important, the challenges of Bill C-64. It is so easy for Parliamentarians to pass a law that applies to everyone but ourselves. The business maxim of walk the talk speaks to the need for managers to roll up their sleeves and do some of the dirty work.

On one hand there is a real sense of leadership when one's boss shows he or she is willing to do the same job as the labourer or technician. More important, many company presidents and CEOs have found that actually spending a day in the shoes of the worker has exposed them to challenges and benefits of the line, so to speak, in very tangible ways. Therefore by way of analogy this proposal makes sound business sense.

Participation by the Prime Minister's office would show all Canadians who have experienced discrimination in employment that they have a friend at the top. Due to the bill's application to the Prime Minister's office all Canadians would see their government really believes in the right of the disadvantaged to participate in the workforce.

Earlier I mentioned how the Prime Minister's office plays a large role not only in shaping the agenda of government and of Parliament but in shaping Canadian public opinion. Given this,

the Liberals should amend the bill and give the disadvantaged an increased voice at the top which could play a vital role in reducing many of the so-called systemic barriers many Canadians face in the job market.

If they will not include the PMO what example are they showing? If the Prime Minister's office is to be spared, why not all private firms with budgets smaller than $5 million? How can we as politicians mandate change on Canadians which we would shirk from imposing on ourselves? How can we deal with this do as I say, not as I do attitude?

Without the practical experience of Bill C-64 working in the PMO how can we tell Canadian employers we are all working together? How can we reverse discrimination in the hearts of Canadians when the Prime Minister's office holds out a "not welcome here" sign?

Reformers believe this "not in my backyard" philosophy is a national curse. The House must show Canadians Bill C-64 has been well thought out, is well intended and will be well managed at every stage. Application of the bill to the Prime Minister's office might ensure that, or it might prove the opposite.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

I am well aware the Senate in this country is appointed because this government continues to fill the other place with its appointments. We are very well aware it is appointed.

The senator was trying to say that if the Charlottetown accord had gone ahead with a provision for an elected Senate, that she would have ran at that time and felt she had a good opportunity to be elected. However, it would not have been because she was a woman but because she was good at her job and would have run on that basis.

I ask the hon. minister to actually cite some statistics and some examples of where the people of Canada support this type of reverse discrimination.