Paul Devillers

[Petitions, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 53 residents of Simcoe North. They request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this important restructuring of the current unemployment insurance system.

I want to congratulate my colleagues who sat on the parliamentary committee and worked on this complex problem. This bill is about modernizing our unemployment insurance program, that was created in the 1970s. Because more and more Canadians are affected by rapid economic transformations and the government's budget for social programs is already stretched to the limit, no one can deny that these changes were needed.

I would like to focus on three topics today, which are the computation of eligible hours, the effect on small businesses and the application of this system to high income earners.

First, this bill constitutes, in my opinion, a fundamental change as far as eligibility to the system is concerned. From now on, eligibility will be based on the number of hours worked and not weeks. In today's labour market, a system based on the number of

weeks worked creates unfairness. For many workers, one week does not mean 40 hours from Monday to Friday any more.

When establishing the eligibility of workers according to the number of hours worked, the government wants to ensure that every hour of work counts. Thus, it would be more advantageous to work as long as one can. The new system takes into account the fact the labour market has changed and that millions of people now have work patterns that no longer correspond to the traditional work week. They deserve the same protection as their fellow citizens holding regular jobs get in case of a layoff.

The new system is a lot fairer for people working part time or in seasonal industries. For example, people working less than 15 hours a week will be insurable from now on. With employment insurance, 90,000 part time or seasonal workers will become eligible for benefits. Many will become eligible earlier and for longer periods and will see a bigger part of their earnings insured.

Second, I would like to talk about the effects of the bill on economic growth. The government's objective is to create an environment that is good for business, economic growth and job creation. That is the main objective of our employment strategy.

That objective will be met in many ways. I will cover only two. First, the lowering of the maximum insurable earnings will match more closely than the present system insurable earnings and salaries in Canada.

That change will lower the payroll charges, thus increasing the revenues of employers as well as those of employees. The reduction in employer and employee contributions will be particularly apparent in high salary sectors.

Second, one element of the employment insurance program will constitute an important support program for small businesses. You will agree with me that small businesses are vital to Canadian economic renewal.

The small business support program will reduce the impact of any increase in the contribution level. This will be aimed at companies with fewer than 25 employees that will pay less than $30,000 in premiums in 1996. Any raise in the contribution level representing $500 or more as compared with the base year, 1996, will give the employer a partial rebate. Companies affected will get a rebate of up to 50 per cent of any raise in 1997 and 25 per cent in 1998. This two-year program will begin in January 1997 to coincide with the implementation of the first dollar earned policy and the annual calculation of maximum insurable earnings. Employers whose 1996 contributions are less than $25,000 will be entitled to a maximum yearly rebate of $5,000. Those whose contributions are between $25,000 and $30,000 will see their maximum rebate reduced dollar for dollar.

Finally, I would like to talk about this system as it applies to high-income people. Some of my constituents have mentioned the fact that, under the present system, it is possible to work a few months during the year and to increase one's income by drawing unemployment insurance for the rest of the year, and to do so year after year. This inequity was raised by several Canadians during the consultations that led to this bill.

The employment insurance program will have stricter clawback provisions. Claimants who will have received more than 20 weeks of benefits over the last five years and whose income exceeds $39,000 will have to reimburse a greater portion of their insurance benefits than is the case at the present time. These people could have to reimburse up to 50 per cent of the benefits that were paid to them.

High-income earners who contribute to the program will continue to have access to reasonable benefits in case of unforseen job loss. However, those who work only part of the year and whose income is still higher than average will not be able to increase their income by drawing considerable amounts in employment insurance year after year.

In conclusion, I think this bill makes necessary changes to the unemployment insurance system to modernize it. The new system confirms the value of work since every hour of work counts. So the system will protect 97 per cent of the labour force. It will be more fair and more balanced. It provides for recovery of benefits, thus guaranteeing that people with high incomes receiving benefits frequently will no longer benefit from the system unfairly. Finally, the move to employment insurance will be gradual so that small businesses will have the time they need to adjust to the changes. This bill represents a compromise between our budget constraints and our desire to offset the negative effects of unexpected loss of employment.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last part of the question on same sex marriages, my understanding is that marriage is within provincial jurisdiction. I am not familiar with the case cited by my hon. colleague. I am not sure at what level it was, if it had been appealed and so on. I am satisfied and confident that the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation will not affect marriages.

I am not saying that some day same sex marriages will not be recognized. I am not saying whether they should or should not be. That is not before the House at this time. I am dealing with what we have in front of us.

The hon. member also mentioned the red book. I do not know why things were not included in the red book. I was not an author of the red book. I was a member of the party and attended party policy meetings. This measure has been part of Liberal Party policy since 1978. It was voted in by the grassroots levels of the party. As recently as last weekend the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party of Canada passed a motion with a large majority that this measure should be carried out.

The member has indicated this is an issue in my riding. I have had a few calls from people who in good faith have very real concerns. A lot of those concerns are based on inaccuracies; they are concerns that will not follow from these amendments.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question, even if it is not exactly a question. I thank him nevertheless. I think a lot of people fail to understand the issue with this bill. Many people, perhaps with all goodwill, are concerned and think we are trying to give special rights to people whose way of life they do not share. But, this is not the case at all, as the hon. member pointed out.

We are trying to ensure there is no discrimination against persons whose sexual orientation is not the same as other people's. This bill applies as much to heterosexuals as to gays and lesbians.

This is a point many people often forget. They think the bill exists only to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, and that is not the case.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which in my opinion will benefit all of Canadian society.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the government on its consistency in delivering on its election promises by introducing its bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is vital that the consequences of amending the act be presented to this House, and accordingly to Canadians. There are too many lies, myths and half truths that have crept into the debate on this amendment.

Some say that the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination will have the effect of sanctioning crimes such as pedophilia. This is absurd. The proposed amendment in no way sanctions such crimes. Furthermore they are formally prohibited under the Criminal Code and carry various sentences.

I would also like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Federal Court, have already had an opportunity to rule on the scope of the words "sexual orientation", and that at no time was there any question of broadening the scope of these words to sanction behaviour that is already expressly prohibited by law.

One myth having to do with special rights is also unfortunately raging among opponents to the amendment. In fact, quite the opposite is true, for the purpose of this amendment is to introduce sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, which will protect, of course, gays and lesbians, but also any heterosexual, against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The amendment is in no way intended to confer special rights on a particular category of Canadian citizen. The principal purpose of this amendment is only to protect against any discrimination in the workplace. It is quite simply not a question of this amendment conferring special privileges, such as the adoption of children, which in any event is a provincial matter, or the possibility of granting benefits to same sex partners.

I come from a so-called traditional, Christian family, and I assure you that the present amendment in no way infringes on family values. Furthermore, the recognition and the support of the government are explicitly set forth in the preamble to the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which reads in part as follow:

-whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society-

The wording of the amendment is explicit in this regard and confirms that the purpose of the amendment is not to take away from the family as the social unit in Canada.

To those who say that this amendment should not be adopted by this House because it is a question of sanctioning an immoral measure, I reply that, on the contrary, it is a question of human rights. The Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to recognize all human rights, including the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The all-party parliamentary committee on equality rights tabled a report in the House in 1985 unanimously recommending that "the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination to the other grounds".

Although the Tory government at that time pledged to follow through on this recommendation, no action was ever taken. This amendment was promised by the Prime Minister in the last federal election and reiterated by members of the government numerous times since the election.

Many recent court decisions have supported the need to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. In a landmark decision, Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that lesbians and gays have historically been subjected to unjustifiable prejudice and disadvantage, and that the failure of the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide lesbians and gays with any protection against discrimination violates the equality guarantees of the charter of rights.

The Canadian government has spent many millions of dollars defending challenges of laws and regulations that discriminate

against lesbians and gays. During recent years, it has become evident that the courts are forcing changes to end this discrimination.

With every court case the government loses, our justice system is telling it that the equality rights for gays and lesbians are fundamental and that these rights must be respected. The government can either voluntarily amend laws that discriminate against lesbians and gays or be forced to do so by the courts, case by case, paying the associated legal costs.

It should not be left to the courts to make policy or to rewrite statutes. Admittedly, this amendment has its limitations. It is a federal statute and therefore limited to matters of federal jurisdiction. It does not apply to areas of provincial jurisdiction, for example, religion, education or culture.

Churches, religious organizations and schools are not under federal jurisdiction. They will not be affected in the way that they operate. Matters such as adoption fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction and will not be affected by this amendment.

It does not change the definition of marriage, family or spouse. It does not condone or condemn heterosexuality or homosexuality. The amendment deals with discrimination in employment, accommodation and provision of services.

In a 1994 Angus Reid survey, a large majority of Canadians, 81 per cent, believe that homosexuals in this country experience discrimination at their place of work. Only 9 per cent of Canadians felt that there was no discrimination of homosexuals in the workplace.

The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the federal government as well as to institutions that are under federal jurisdiction such as banks, railway companies and airlines. Approximately 10 per cent of Canadians work for these employers. That 10 per cent has a right to equal protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Some people have asked that I vote according to the Christian point of view. Even if it was appropriate for me as a member of Parliament and for the House of Commons, Canada's legislature, to make laws on the basis of religious conviction, this would prove to be very difficult since there is no consensus among Christian denominations on the gay and lesbian rights issue. Although a number of clergy are speaking out against equal rights for gays and lesbians, many clergy are actively advocating these changes.

For example, more than 125 priests from the Anglican diocese of Toronto signed a letter stating that sexual orientation should no longer be a cause of discrimination in society, especially in the church, that the church should bless relationships between gay and lesbian couples and that the church allow gay and lesbian priests to have the same rights as their heterosexual colleagues to be in a committed, loving relationship, including the sexual expression of that love.

Similarly, Canadian Friends Service Committee, a committee of the religious Society of Friends, Quakers in Canada, wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting legislation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime legislation and the entrenchment of the principle of recognition of same sex relationships everywhere in the law.

In addition, during the debate of Bill 167 in the Ontario provincial legislature, more than 400 clergy from 135 communities representing 11 denominations signed a petition calling for the extension of the same benefits and rights to heterosexual couples to persons in same sex relationships.

In conclusion, I repeat that the inclusion of sexual orientation is not some abstract addition for the sole benefit of the gay and lesbian community, some distant and isolated group on the fringe of Canadian society.

Gays and lesbians are members of our families. They are our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers, our relatives and our neighbours. Would we want to see these people discriminated against on the basis of any sort of ground having to do with their very being? No. I am certain that the answer of any reasonable Canadian to this question will be a resounding no.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate the hon. member for Joliette, in replying to a question posed by the hon. member for Mississauga South, compared the conflict of interest that he was discussing to something similar to, in the next election, the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party of Canada having the same political advisers.

He used that to compare the potential alleged conflict of interest that is the subject of this motion. Could the hon. member draw a distinction for the House between political advisers and the professionals sitting on this technical committee?

[Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Semaine nationale de la francophonie is an opportunity for Canadians to celebrate the presence and development of francophone communities in Canada. There is in my riding, more precisely in and around Penetanguishene, a proud francophone community that is not afraid to take charge of its own future.

I take this opportunity to inform the House that Penetanguishene's francophone community has just signed an agreement with the government, the Île Beausoleil agreement, for the funding of community organizations.

This agreement, which respects the spirit of the Semaine de la francophonie, shows how the francophone culture is thriving not only in Quebec, birth place of Canada's francophonie, but throughout the country.

[Parliamentary Employment And Staff Relations Act, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with section 84 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, I wish to table, in both official languages, the ninth annual report on the administration of the act by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

This report should be deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

[Public Service Staff Relations Board, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 32(2) and to section 114 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 28th annual report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Government Operations.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I totally agree with him that businesses should pay their share of taxes to the government. In his question or comments, he indicates to us that he is not satisfied with the membership of the commission, but that is only a beginning. I am sure the government will try to find ways to settle its matters so that large businesses pay their share of taxes.