Jay Hill

[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.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

If you must know, it was Senator Pat Carney. She said she could get elected to the Senate of Canada on her own merits not because some government took it upon itself to legislate equality.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's comments very enlightening of the Liberals' position. It reminds me of what took place in British Columbia just before and during the Charlottetown accord. At that time the NDP government in British Columbia decided in its wisdom to promote the idea of Senate reform based on gender equality. It decided that if we were going to reform the Senate and make it elected, it would legislate an equal number of men and women senators. However it very quickly found out the people of British Columbia did not support that type of action.

Interestingly enough, one of the sitting women senators was the most outspoken against that. She found it personally demeaning that a government would consider legislating-

[Petitions, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting petitions signed by constituents of Prince George-Peace River. They feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from acquiring guns by illegal means.

Furthermore, the petitioners feel that many existing firearms regulations were brought in for a matter of public policy with no regard to future effectiveness and potential benefit.

Therefore they ask Parliament to support laws which punish criminals using firearms, support, recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and abolish any existing gun control laws which have proven to be ineffective.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Prince George-Peace River. Some 74 citizens have signed the petition.

The petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

I find myself in complete concurrence with this and it is my pleasure to present it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister will take the letter under consideration, because it is addressed to him.

The minister of Indian affairs cannot continue to ignore band members requesting financial accountability of their chiefs and council. As the minister knows, this is not an isolated case despite what he claims.

To pay for the so-called incompetent bookkeeping band members must forgo much needed capital projects and social programs. They have called on the minister to uphold his fiduciary obligation to them.

My supplementary question is for the same minister. What steps will the minister take to hold chiefs and council financially accountable to all band members and guarantee that abuses like this will never happen again?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the minister of Indian Affairs what he had done about serious allegations regarding the misuse of band assets, capital project funds and housing moneys on the Yellow Quill Reserve.

I am now in receipt of a letter from a band member who says that the Indian affairs department has finally admitted that the $2 million deficit was due to "incompetent bookkeeping".

The band may have a financial management plan in place, but band members want to know what the minister has done to determine where the missing millions went.