Jim Abbott

[The Senate, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the recent referendum the Quebec electorate set off an alarm. People in Quebec and indeed all of Canada demand change to the Canadian federation that does not involve constitutional wrangling.

The Prime Minister's outdated, outmoded, traditional political practices of stuffing the Senate with patronage appointments is unacceptable. He must begin a transition to a new Senate which would be effective, elected and equal. And the first non-constitutional step to validate that place is to elect members to the upper house.

The Reform Party demands changes based on the model of the 1989 Alberta senatorial selection act which allowed the election of the late Senator Stan Waters.

The referendum has issued a wake-up call to the federal government. The Reform Party stands as the only federal party with answers to that wake-up call. Canadians note that while the alarm has gone off, the Prime Minister continues to hit the snooze button.

[Question Passed As Order For Return, October 25th, 1995]

What are the names of all the Department of Justice Standing Legal Agents (including civil and criminal legal agents) as of September 1993 and as of June 1995?

Return tabled.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, considering the very unfortunate events that have taken place on the lower mainland relative to the murder of a young lady and other events relating to that, it is very timely that I received in my office today a petition to return the rights to the citizens from criminals.

Some of the points refer to keeping dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life, eliminating statutory release and imposing stiffer sentences for violent offenders.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary to my friend.

I wonder if he would give us his personal opinion. In order for us to arrive at a proper conclusion to this process as the aboriginal community will have one person, one vote, would he agree that the non-aboriginal community that is affected by the same process should also have one person, one vote? What is his opinion?

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the member who as I understood it stated that we cannot have a true settlement unless the grassroots are consulted.

The inference I took was that he was saying the grassroots at the aboriginal level should be consulted. This is not a criticism; I am just stating that I was not at all clear as to whether he also believed as I do that there must be a full consultation process at the

grassroots level with the non-aboriginal community as well and that they must be involved in the process.

He did refer to partners participating. Again, I agree with that. I believe he also mentioned about people making decisions at the top end. I suggest to him that the problem with the process as it is presently envisioned by the federal Liberal government and by the NDP government in British Columbia is that people are going to be making decisions at the top end for the non-aboriginal community and there is going to be insufficient input from the grassroots, as he put it, in the non-aboriginal community.

Since coming to Ottawa I have experienced that consultation is a word which is frequently used very liberally, if I may use a play on words, particularly by the civil service. Consultation really means that they are going to go through the process of appearing to consult, but after all is said and done, the die is cast and the decision has been made.

I would assume that the member believes in the equality of all Canadians as I do. Everyone of voting age meeting certain qualifications should have the right as a Canadian citizen to vote in any election. That also obviously extends to the broader issue of the equality of all Canadians. I wonder if the member would also agree with me that in the same way throughout this process there most probably are going to be ratification procedures for the aboriginal community which will be one person, one vote.

I wonder if the member would agree with my party's position that there also must be a ratification procedure which would be outside of the ratification by this Chamber or by the legislature in Victoria. The ratification procedure should be on the basis of one person, one vote for all people in the affected area, be they aboriginal or non-aboriginal. This would give us the qualification that all people are equal regardless of race, language, creed, colour, religion or gender. Would the member agree that in order for this process to work we must have one person, one vote by aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike in order to have a final and concluding settlement of this issue?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today to say that I consider this entire debate to be pathetically irrelevant. I reflect on the words of the hon. member for Kamloops that it is a frosty Friday when we have a member of the Reform Party agreeing with a member of the New Democrats.

We should be bringing forward issues like true tax reform, such as the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and our member for Calgary Centre have suggested. We should be bringing forward legislation for proper protection, particularly under the CPP and protection for seniors. We should be bringing forward realistic reform to health care and returning room to tax and powers to the provinces. I look at the Order Paper and I see that in addition to this totally irrelevant and pathetic Bill S-9, the next orders of government are: Bill C-90, the Minister of Finance, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; Bill C-106, the Minister of Justice, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada; and Bill C-105, the Minister of Finance, Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act. We should be doing some real legislation in this House.

It is a very unusual day but I underscore the fact that I stand very strongly behind the member for Kamloops when I say that this bill along with the rest of the legislation that is being brought forward by this government is pathetically irrelevant. Why not bring something to this House that has some meaning to the people of Canada?

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada is a cultural mosaic made up of citizens with various ethnic and religious backgrounds. Many of these people have overcome tremendous adversities to be able to reside in Canada where all citizens are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

This sentiment has not always been shared or fostered across the land. At various times in our history certain groups have been the target of discrimination and persecution. These have scarred our past and from these times we have grown to be a much more tolerant and a much more civilized society.

I am not in favour of a homogenized Canada. I am in favour of equal access for all Canadians. Bill C-64 is an impediment to such access. By ensuring access to some, Liberals block access to others.

It is important to ensure Canadians from traditionally disadvantaged groups are given access to education and all the other benefits of Canadian citizenship, but this should not mean that special employment provisions are given to any group or individual in lieu of merit.

The opinion of the government is that these disadvantaged groups need special government legislated programs to be represented in the workforce. However legislation is overkill. Liberals will never achieve employment equity through divisive means even if it is imposed by the heavy hand of the law.

As an employer I am looking for a person who will do the job best. There is no race or gender attachment to that criterion; only merit. Under the government's plan I no longer have to find the best person for the job. I now have to find the best candidate from a designated group. This is not equal opportunity under the law. It is an enforced quota system.

The legislation states that employers with a workforce of at least 100 persons who are in the service of the federal government must comprise their workforce proportionately to the make-up of the population. The government has a fixation with numbers, quotas and statistics, which is why the Minister of Industry is going ahead with a census based on race, even on the nation of origin of Canadian citizens.

The Reform Party believes in an immigration policy that is colour blind and says that immigration based on race or country of origin is racism. If that is the case, what is legislation that is based on race or country of origin? I suggest respectfully it too is racism.

The government would lead us to believe that under representation of disadvantaged groups in the workplace is the result of discrimination. This is preposterous. In Canada citizens are free to choose the career of their choice. How could the government impose a plan on Canadians which quantifies access to certain jobs? If discrimination is wrong for one designated group, it is wrong for all Canadians.

To select someone for a job based on race or gender is just as wrong as not selecting the same person for the same reasons. All people must be equal regardless of race, language, creed, religion or gender.

Canada's employment practices have evolved to a level where we recognize the wrongs of the past. I would hope that we have also evolved to a level where we recognize that redemption for the oppression of one group should not be the oppression of another group. There is still considerable room for improvement. However Bill C-64 is clearly not the answer.

I should not expect the government to grasp the concept of equal opportunity. Its party has passed some of the most divisive legislation in Canadian history. According to Liberal dogma we as a country are supposed to find unity and strength by focusing on our differences and making exceptions for those differences.

Unfortunately we live in an intolerant world. We only have to watch the nightly news to see the atrocities that occur daily in the name of difference. Why would we in Canada, a country of incredible opportunity, focus on the differences of the population and legislate employment policies based on race, gender and disability?

To identify a specific group as disadvantaged gives a perception that it is incapable of succeeding on its own. This is clearly untrue and is a disservice to those groups.

I should mention that many women in my constituency have approached me on the issue. Uniformly they see quotas as demeaning their personal value, developed skills and work ethic. They want government meddling in the workforce eliminated, not enhanced.

When will the government realize the ramifications of its actions? The people of Ontario clearly voted against the unwanted employment equity legislation. Does it not see the divisions and animosity created by its policies? I wonder if the government has taken into consideration the long term effects of its quota systems, because they are quota systems. At what point do we reverse the discrimination angle and again promote those who have been kept down? This is a cyclical effect and the only solution is to end it now.

The government should be proactive, advocate equality in the truest sense of the word, treat all Canadians the same, tax them the same and educate them the same. As utopian as that may sound it is a positive step for the future.

As long as the government keeps legislating discriminatory ideology there is no possible means of attaining what is guaranteed under the charter, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

[Government Appointments, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this particular case has been before the court since September 1993, a full two years.

In addition to this case, in Victoria last week another Liberal appointee turned up in the court unable to even qualify with an ordinary argument for law in the court. That case was thrown out.

In a second case in Victoria the crown prosecution witnesses turned up but surprisingly the crown prosecutor did not. That case was thrown out.

When is the justice department going to wake up?

[Government Appointments, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last May when the justice minister was attempting to justify the Liberal patronage appointments that his revenue minister wanted for Vancouver Island crown counsel positions, he said that the sole criterion for their appointment was that of competence.

Well, their competence showed up last week when one of the Liberal appointees turned up in a Nanaimo court totally unprepared, incapable of proceeding, and a serious drug case was thrown out. Is this the Liberal justice department's measure of competence?

[Victims Of Crime, September 26th, 1995]

We are talking about C-45.