Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Employment Insurance Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act 1997 (schedule I).

I thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for passing over the national issue in favour of an important social issue by choosing to support this bill, which is intended to restore to unemployment insurance its objective of ensuring unemployed people of a decent income while between jobs, particularly the seasonal workers who have to live through what is termed the spring gap, those ten weeks yearly when, as a result of the Liberal reform, we are unable to ensure hundreds of thousands of citizens of Quebec and Canada of a decent living.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (rate of benefits).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill to change the calculation of employment insurance premiums. This bill if passed will eliminate from the calculation of benefits the many rules reducing the amount of benefits recipients are entitled to.

The bill aims to have benefits represent 55% of earned salary. We will thus be a little more compassionate with workers facing a period of unemployment. I seek the support of all parties in this House.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (section 15).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, like my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, to introduce an amendment to this act to eliminate a rule known as the intensity rule, which imposes a sliding scale—from 55% to 50%—in the rate of benefits paid out to those regularly drawing on employment insurance.

We need only recall the technocrat speech delivered to us in question period and the insensitivity to those hit by unemployment, especially the seasonally unemployed and the frequent users, whom the minister wants to penalize with a 5% cut to their benefits.

In the face of this unfair rule, I propose the pure and simple abolition of the intensity rule.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (qualifying for benefit).

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which seeks to ease the qualifying rules, is part of a concerted action by the Bloc Quebecois.

It proposes, among other measures, to correct two inequities affecting newcomers on the labour market, people who return to the labour market after two years absence and women who stay at home to raise their children. These people must work 910 hours, instead of 420 to 700 hours, depending on the regional rate applicable to other workers. This creates two categories of unemployed.

The bill also seeks to eliminate the two categories of unemployed created by the current legislation, namely those who worked 700 hours and those who worked less than 700 hours. It is impossible for those who worked less than 700 hours to obtain parental leave or sick leave. This is why we must support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (premiums and Employment Insurance Account).

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the EI fund is paid for by employees and employers. It is therefore clear that this fund should be separate from the federal government's general operating budget, as opposed to the present state of affairs.

The purpose of the bill is twofold: first, to give the Employment Insurance Commission exclusive authority for setting premium rates; second, to ensure that there is a specific Employment Insurance appropriation account, for the very purpose of preventing the Liberal government and perhaps others from continuing to dip blithely into the fund belonging to workers and employers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (refund).

Mr. Speaker, following on the initiative of a generous man, and I am obviously referring to the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the refund level. The purpose of my bill is to allow those with insurable earnings under $5,000 to obtain a refund of their EI premiums.

The purpose of this bill is to extend this refund to all persons whose insurable earnings are less than $5,000 so that this measure applies to the majority of those who pay premiums without qualifying for benefits.

This is a generous bill. It is a bill with a social conscience. I think that is what sets us apart from the members opposite.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of Canadians, including from my riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners also agree with the national forum on health recommendation that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that provide care in the home to preschool children because the act does not take into account the real cost of raising children.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool children.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On October 2, 1997, I placed Question No. 21 on the Notice Paper. This asked a fairly straightforward and simple question about visits by ministers to the Drummondville, Trois Rivieres vicinity during a 10 month period between August 1996 and June 1997.

Can the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate when we might expect an answer to this rather uncomplicated question?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I will certainly look into it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished member from the great and historic riding of Saint John, New Brunswick.

I am standing here for the final time to state my opposition to what the House is doing before we take the vote tomorrow evening on the proposed amendment to term 17, which is going to wipe out forever our province's denominational schools. The right to those schools is held by the various faith groups, as we are all aware, and there has been absolutely no attempt to get the permission of these groups before we forge ahead with what we are doing.

Instead, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador held a general referendum wherein the rights of the minority were subject to the will of the majority. Ultimately the courts will decide on the legitimacy of taking away a minority right without the demonstrated consent of the minority. Such a case is currently before the courts.

I should remind the House that the supreme court did rule on the consensus required to amend the constitution back in Prime Minister Trudeau's day. However, it remains to be seen if the court will rule on the scope and nature of the consensus required to wipe out a minority right. Yet we are plunging ahead today anyway.

As we are all aware, the school system in Newfoundland, the Christian based schooling of Newfoundlanders, will be a thing of the past when this amendment passes. Religious instruction will be replaced with courses about religion and I, as one citizen, do not regard that as progress or reform.

A week or so ago I had the opportunity to serve on the joint Senate-House of Commons committee that was holding hearings on the proposed amendment to term 17. The MP for Burin—St. George's was our regular representative on that committee, but he was travelling in Atlantic Canada with the federal fisheries committee and I had the opportunity to take his place for a while. I would like to share some of the impressions arising from my service on that committee.

There were passionate presentations before the committee from Newfoundlanders who were for and against this amendment. I was around for about 15 or 20 presentations. The Newfoundland-Labrador Teachers Association, the Integrated Education Committee, the Education First group, which I did not hear, all spoke strongly in support of the elimination of the denominational system of education. We heard representatives of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Pentecostal Assemblies and the catholics who vigorously defended the maintenance of these denominational rights.

At the end of the week the committee received a second visit from Newfoundland's minister of education, Roger Grimes, but I do not feel the minister's second visit was in response to the presentations made by Newfoundlanders. I feel the minister's visit was prompted by testimony from a couple of professors from New Brunswick. I want to elaborate a bit on that.

Professor Donald J. Fleming of the University of New Brunswick, faculty of law, and Dr. Patrick Malcolmson, associate professor of political science from St. Thomas University in Fredericton, had earlier given presentations on the legal implications of the new proposed term 17.

I have no legal background and I have no great legal knowledge. I am repeating what I heard from these gentlemen. The bottom line on those presentations was that our new term 17 will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the term's clauses will be interpreted by the courts in accordance with the provisions of the charter. The original term 17 and the most recent term we had, the Clyde Wells amendment as I like to call it, were exempt from the scrutiny of the charter because of the original Confederation compromise.

In 1867 the Confederation compromise meant a guarantee of catholic minority rights in Ontario and protestant minority rights in Quebec. In Newfoundland that meant a guarantee of denominational rights for a number of Christian denominations at the time of Confederation back in 1949. Because these Confederation rights were established before the charter came into being, the provisions of the charter do not apply to these particular rights. Confederation rights are not subject to the charter of rights and freedoms, and of course we all agree that is why catholic education today survives in an Ontario education system that is otherwise completely secular.

The new term 17 before us today rejects the denominationalism of the original Confederation compromise and is exempt from scrutiny of the charter. Therefore in any future court case provisions in the new term 17 for religious education and observances will be subject to the charter.

Again, I do not have any legal background. I am simply repeating what I have heard these very learned and distinguished gentlemen say.

I repeat that the new term 17 rejects the denominational wisdom of the original Confederation compromise and is not exempt from scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms. Therefore in any future court case provisions in the new term 17 for religious education and observances will be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. In other words, no matter what the intention of the Newfoundland government or the intention of the Newfoundland people, it is the Supreme Court of Canada which will eventually decide the scope and nature of religious education and observances in our new Newfoundland school system. That is why so many people in Newfoundland object to what is going on here.

In his second presentation to the committee the minister of education spoke with passion to the effect that he believed the Newfoundland people did not want a totally secular, godless school system. That is the way he put it. He was back to defend their position. As evidence of that he pointed to the relevant sections of term 17 which provide for courses in religion and religious observances.

The thing we have to remember is that the minister of education spoke as a politician. He did not speak as a lawyer, he did not speak as a supreme court judge, he spoke as a politician. I expected him, on his return visit to the committee, to come backed up with a battery of legal arguments about the relevant sections of term 17 and how these relevant sections could withstand a charter challenge in the courts. However, that was not the case. It was not the case because the Minister of Education could not make these legal arguments to say that the new terms would not be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have made no secret of the fact that I support denominational rights for the people who want to maintain and exercise those rights. However, assuming that the new term 17 is approved in its present form, as it appears before the House, I am not going to take any great satisfaction from the courts eventually ruling that our new system of education in Newfoundland has to be totally secular. I will not take any great satisfaction from that at all.

I sincerely hope the minister is right and that the courts will allow for some expression of religion in our schools. However, I know what we do have and I am not willing to pin the future spiritual education of our children on a hope. In other words, my short service on the term 17 committee has only strengthened my intention to vote no when this matter finally comes to a vote.

Constitutional law drawn up in the heat of the moment might be good politics for Brian Tobin and—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for St. John's East. I appreciate his involvement in the committee as a substitute member for the hon. member for St. John's West.

The member rightly referred to testimony which was provided by Messrs. Malcolmson and Fleming regarding certain constitutional aspects of term 17 and, as well, aspects related to the international convenant on human rights.

It was pointed out by the member that the testimony we received was such that in the eyes of the witnesses any constitutional provision that was made post charter, in other words post 1982, could be called into question as to being in violation of the charter because it was not part of the pre-Confederation compromise.

I would like the member to comment if during the course of the testimony, expert witnesses provided opinions as to whether or not the charter itself would be encompassed within the Constitution. The charter itself having been enacted in 1982 is a post-Confederation compromise. The expert witnesses provided testimony that anything that was post Confederation could be in violation with some other aspects of the Canadian Constitution.

The other point I would like the member to comment on in addition to whether or not the charter itself falls within the purview of the Constitution or is not in itself challengeable is whether or not the hon. member believes that the Pentecostal denomination should indeed or actually has denominational rights protected under the charter.

The hon. member is aware that the Pentecost faith denomination received Constitution protection in 1987. I believe it was Mr. Fleming who appeared before the committee and stated emphatically that in his opinion, given the fact that the constitutional protections to the Pentecostal denomination were provided for in 1987, he feels extremely strongly that the Pentecosts should not have any constitutional protection whatsoever.

I would like the member to comment please.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure if I understand what the hon. member is getting at, nor do I think anyone else understands it.

It was made perfectly clear to all of us at that committee meeting that these two very distinguished gentlemen, Professor Malcolmson I believe and Professor Fleming, that the provisions of the new term 17 were subject to the scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms. It would have been very appropriate on some of these questions that the member and other members are asking if this court case had been settled and allowed to go ahead and a decision brought down before we proceeded with what we are doing here today.

The Pentecostal Assemblies he makes reference to were given constitutional protection back in 1987. There is no dispute regarding the fact that their rights are protected under the Constitution of Canada. Once this amendment goes ahead, they certainly will not protected. All members are fully aware that what we have now is not subject to the scrutiny of the charter. Any new amendment, such as the one today, will be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

I do not have any great legal background. I am only speaking after what people such as Malcolmson and Fleming had to say on this particular subject. They made it perfectly clear that it will be subject to the charter.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from Newfoundland, I am also opposed to term 17.

What we have to do today is take a look at where this country has gone over the last 20 to 30 years and what it has done to our young people of today. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a major concern to me when I look at the direction in which so many of our young people are going. We are not supposed to show them any moral values. We are not supposed to talk about religion any more.

But when we went to school it was there and it was good for us. It was very good for us. We did not have a Morgentaler looking over the House of Parliament. We did not have abortions taking place. We did not have any of these things. So we just have to take a look at today's society and ask ourselves in which direction has it been going. Let me tell you, it has been going in the wrong direction and this term 17 is taking us further down that wrong road. It is time for us to turn it around.

What I want to address is the fact that one wants to take a look at what the Newfoundland government did in order to get this through and to bring it here before this government. I want to bring attention to the following points respecting the proposed amendment of term 17 of the terms of the union of Newfoundland with Canada.

In June 1995 the Government of Newfoundland announced that a referendum would be held on September 5 of that year to seek approval from the electorate to limit the power of Catholic and Pentecostal churches to operate separate denominational schools. The process involved an amendment to term 17 of the terms of the union of Newfoundland with Canada which had provided certain guarantees of rights of parents to denominational education of their children. They should always have that right. Always.

The result of the ensuing referendum was a majority vote of 54% of the 52% of the eligible voters who cast their ballots in favour of the proposed amendment. Term 17 was amended accordingly by Parliament and became law on April 21, 1997.

The Government of Newfoundland amended its own legislation to bring into effect the limitation of denominational education which is now permitted under term 17. However in its haste to use its newly acquired powers to eliminate religious education by denominations in as many schools as possible, it failed to comply with the statutes and regulations it had enacted to attain its objective.

As a consequence an application was made to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on behalf of aggrieved citizens alleging violation of the law and discrimination by government against members of the Catholic and Pentecostal churches. Mr. Justice Leo Barry upheld their petition and granted them injunctive relief. In his judgment filed July 8, 1997 the learned judge roundly criticized government for utilizing unlawful and discriminatory measures to implement the provisions of term 17 as amended. That came from Justice Leo Barry whom many of us respect.

Having frustrated its own efforts to change the educational system the government blamed its failure upon the Catholic and Pentecostal denominations. It then called a new referendum requesting public approval to abolish denominational education altogether without having given the amended term 17 a reasonable trial.

The following are some of the questionable measures taken by government to gain a majority vote in the second referendum. In a democracy I cannot believe that any government would support this.

On July 31, 1997 the government announced that the referendum would be held on September 2 next, giving the public a mere 32 days to analyse what it believed would be the government's proposed amendment and prepare campaigns to express and promote their views. It failed to inform the public of the text of the proposed amendment to term 17 until August 25, just 12 days before the referendum. For persons voting in the advance poll this meant a notice of less than two days. Try that one in the next federal election and see what happens.

It declared as one of its reasons to abolish denominational religious education in schools that Newfoundland's standard of pre-university education was low, intolerably low and that it would be greatly improved by getting rid of church influences in our schools. However the truth is that the standard of education for schools in the province of Newfoundland rates third highest across the whole of Canada and that is because they have denominational schools and for no other reason. And they are going to lower that standard as well. I want to say as well that they rank third despite the fact that they have such a large number of rural schools.

The government informed the public that the cost that denominational schooling adds to the general system of education is intolerably high. The fact is that the cost of education on a per capita basis in Newfoundland is the lowest in Canada.

So tell us why they would want to take out the denominational schools and the rights for other people in Newfoundland. They have the lowest cost per capita yet they are ranked third highest when it comes to their educational system. So tell us why.

At present denominational schools can only be established where viable and where numbers warrant. This places upon the government the responsibility to ensure that costs will not reasonably increase. Its power to do this is unquestionable. From the day it announced the referendum, government utilized public moneys and resources to finance and support its own campaign but it gave absolutely nothing to the other side.

I sat on the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. I travelled this country from coast to coast. I was in Newfoundland. Students from Memorial University sat with me that day. I was only supposed to be there for four hours. They asked me to stay overnight so I could talk to them. They said they wanted to talk about their country. They were very special.

On the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future we were told by experts that we have a big problem in Canada, that the big problem is the charter of rights and freedoms because we did not bring in responsibilities for all of them. Yet we are saying what we are going to do is what Newfoundland is doing now. We are going to let the Supreme Court of Canada make all the decisions.

I cannot believe that those who are sitting on the government side in this House of Commons cannot see what a backward step we are taking when we eliminate denominational schools. I ask the government from the bottom of my heart to help our children today, to guide our children today, to give them the opportunity to pick up God's word in that Bible. It should be in every school. I feel very sorry for anyone who votes against it and I feel very sorry for the children of Newfoundland, as I do for children in other provinces across this country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments. We have a fair amount of activity in questions and comments so I will ask everybody to keep questions and responses very brief. We will start with the member for Calgary Southeast, then we will go to the member for Broadview—Greenwood, and then we will go to the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. lady for her very principled remarks as well as those of the hon. member for St. John's East who I gather is the only elected politician from Newfoundland either here or in the provincial legislature who has taken a position of principle and courage by posing this proposed amendment.

[An hon. member]

Shame, shame.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

He will be treated well by history.

I would like to comment on the cheap partisan heckling that is coming from the other side on an issue that really should transcend partisanship. I am a pretty partisan member of this place but on issues like this one, when the hon. member is speaking from the heart on principle, to be shouting shame and so forth is totally out of place.

In the proposed new term 17, provisions are made for religious education and religious observances in the schools, which the hon. member for St. John's East spoke to. Does the member believe these provisions will provide the kind of guarantee of access to truly religious education that were guaranteed—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Saint John.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for his question. No, I do not believe that. There is no way. There is absolutely nothing in term 17 that will guarantee there will be religious denominational teaching as we know it today through our Pentecostal churches, through our Catholic churches, our Protestant churches, no. It is not—