[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Why?

Ms Catterall: I would simply like to satisfy myself that I do understand the reply to my question. They reply that they have not presented any motion, any suggestion, any amendment and that they are waiting for the government to do it for them. Is that the answer?

Mr. Dubé: Madam Chair, you are responsible for moderating the workshop this morning. You can consult whomever you wish. The member is trying to examine me on my intentions. What counts is what is happening at present, here and now, at this very time. Now that we have disposed of the question -

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No, we were talking about the point of privilege that you put forward and we were trying to deal with that point of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No. Another question was asked as well. I am saying that the question is not relevant and should not be accepted. However, what is relevant is to discuss Ms Brown's amendment concerning the time at our disposal. She proposes that we give ourselves until the 22nd or 24th of June to discuss the bill. That is the subject that is at issue. There is no other.

Mr. Proud must again be reminded of this. It is irritating to always have to do so. It is said somewhere that in committee there is no previous question when you are discussing a question of time. He knows that. Madam Chair has known it since this morning. The clerk will remind her again that you cannot raise a previous question as long as some members wish to discuss this motion dealing with time.

So, I implore Madam Chair once again to inform her colleague, Mr. Proud, of this provision.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I have two speakers and I hope they are speaking to Mrs. Brown's subamendment.

Mr. Bernier, I have your name down to speak to the subamendment, and I have Mr. Proud to speak to the subamendment, and then we'll attempt to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: In any event, you cannot put a previous question in Committee.

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Madam Chair, I come to this committee and I strongly reiterate the comments by my colleague Mr. Dubé, from the riding of Lévis. Clause 116 allows us to speak for as long as we feel is necessary.

From what I know of the procedure, the only way to suspend the proceedings would be for the majority to request an adjournment. Obviously, we would come back later to the issue that has been left in abeyance. But that would give you the time to get some rest.

As to how to wind up the proceedings, still under clause 116, we would have to return to the House in order to be served with an order of the House. That would mean imposing a gag on top of the gag.

I applaud Ms Brown's initiative. I see it as an amendment to the amendment of the amendment. She is proposing a date that is still further off. Without wishing to speculate on the appropriateness of that date, I would like to say that I cannot conceive of why we would want to shackle ourselves to a definite date when we know very well that the tool on which we are working will be implemented for the next 10, 15, 20, 30 or 100 years, at least, I hope, for as long as Canada exists as such. I think, Madam Chair, that it is very important to study and take the time to compare the opinions of each member.

We are now living through a moment in history. Canada, in my opinion, is politically divided into three regions. Quebec is primarily represented by the Bloc Québécois; Western Canada by the Reform party; and the rest of Canada, let's say the Maritimes and Ontario, which seem to be represented primarily by the Liberals.

Without wishing to place too much stress on this interpretation, Madam Chair, I will say that it is a moment in history to have three currents of thought in mutual encounter in Canada. Whether or not one appreciates the situation, it is a reflection of the current society.

This is, perhaps, what gives rise to the verbal slugfests and discussions that may appear interminable to some. No matter, that is the current reality. We must confront our respective lines of thought in order to shed some light on this confrontation, in the interests of the entire population of Canada.

.1005

I would like to explain that I come from a so-called rural region, located at the sea's edge. I allow myself the liberty of saying that Gaspé county is the most beautiful part of Canada. It is the nose of Quebec. To live in a rural region such as that, a resource region, one must live in pace with the seasons.

Madam Chair, we cannot plant our potatoes before the good Lord deigns to produce the sun to warm the soil, and to melt the ice.

You see, Madam Chair, even the good Lord waits upon the seasons, and there is a time for everything. How can we, within these precincts, not take the necessary time to allow the three currents of thought to unite such that we can continue to administer this great country that is Canada? It is very hard to understand why you do not agree to take the time that is needed.

I would like to ensure that the opposing party, the Liberals, just so we put our cards on the table, get to understand the perspective within which it would be possible to bring about an encounter between the three currents of thought represented by the three political parties. However, I would like to make a short digression, while Mr. Paré pours me a glass of water, and to pick up on whatMr. Dubé said earlier when Ms Catterall criticized him for wasting the time of the committee.

I think this is an insult to what we are trying to do. You shouldn't talk of time wasting when some people agree to stay on their feet for entire nights in order to be heard and to be understood.

When one tries to get involved in a great partnership of this kind, what ought one to think of the participation of the party in power? I have experienced in other committees some situations that force me to doubt, at this point, the government's good faith.

I am not saying that I doubt the good faith of the members present here, this morning. I am saying that I doubt the good faith of the government, which perhaps is pressured by time, which perhaps has budget constraints, a deadline to keep. On our side, what we are trying to do is to attempt a rapprochement and to have a clearer understanding of things.

By way of evidence, Madam Chair, I offer the experience I had last week in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where I agreed in good faith to proceed with diligence to the submission of a report so the Minister of Fisheries could understand certain things.

Madam Chair, what was my surprise to see some people arrive at the last minute and, after only two hours of deliberations or hearing of witnesses, feel capable of making a decision on behalf of a whole industry from which delegates had come to speak before us.

Then I understood, Madam Chair. You are going to wonder whether it is possible that the member from Gaspé is still naive on this point. I then understood that the report was written in advance. All that was needed was some people who would act as rubber stamps, as I say in my franglais, that is, who would simply support the opinions of the government.

This sometimes results in the production of rather bizarre reports. I can only applaud the initiative of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois who sit as permanent members of the Committee on Human Resources Development. I can only applaud their effort to stimulate the emergence of a synergy between our three currents of thought.

Having said that, how can that be done if people prevent us from discussing? I told you earlier that I came from a big riding. I know that other people here are from rural areas. I watched television after the Holidays, before our return, and I saw many of these Liberal members from the Maritimes being baited, being boarded - if I can use this seafaring terminology - by their constituents. We all saw, on television, meetings of 500, 600 or even 1,000 people addressed to the members of the government majority asking them to stay the adoption of this bill.

.1010

And what happened, Madam Chair? On the contrary, they did not want to stay; they simply proclaimed a truce during the prorogation of the House. I will come back to this a little later. What was the use of this prorogation of the House since the government is trying to bring back all the bills immediately?

Furthermore, what appeared to be of the utmost importance at the time, putting the constitutional issue back on the floor, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, last week, was instead trying to sweep completely ``under the rug''. They tried to gain time in this way. Now, we have to begin all over again.

But the work of the committee was suspended during this time. We lost precious hours. Did the Liberals and the members from the other parties have the time and above all the necessary weapons to go back to their ridings and meet with their constituents? Were they able to return and discuss with them to find out what they wanted? I don't think they have had the time. In particular, I don't think they have had the political support of their party, since nothing has been altered in this program.

Why don't you say directly what you want? Why, in the course of the parliamentary game, should you believe an opposition member, a Bloc member to boot, who comes and tells you that in his part of the country such a thing is desired by his constituents? Why should I wait when I wasn't even able to find that the members of the party in power had gone back to meet with their constituents to ask them to approve this way of expediting the matter as quickly as possible.

The deputy whip told us earlier that we were trying to gain time and that the shame would reflect on us. Yet, when I travel through my riding, I can walk with my head held high. People will accost me to say that I have defended them and that I have taken the time to convey their comments to Ottawa.

As to the members who live in the same rural circumstances as I do - I cannot speak of the urban situation, with which I am ill acquainted - when they boast in their ridings of having put one over on the Bloc Québécois, of having steamrollered, of having voted for the unemployment insurance reform, clause by clause, after gagging us, what will be the reaction of their constituents?

The reaction of the citizens in these maritime ridings will tend to be the following: ``What did you do to us? It makes no sense! We told you that we did not want that reform unless certain prior conditions were adhered to.'' The prior conditions they will be referring to will be the conditions that could rebuild the economy and promote renewed employment.

In other words, Madam Chair, until we manage to make the members opposite understand what I would call common sense, I expect to receive from the deputy whip expressions of gratitude rather than a series of reprimands like those I have just heard. From this same person or from someone else of similar rank in his party, I expect to receive, by the end of the proceedings of the committee, comments congratulating the Opposition for having saved us all on this issue. Because, if you have to go back to your ridings after the adoption of this bill, you will have eggs hurled at you.

I am not speaking of eggs simply in metaphorical terms, in terms of political speeches. What I am going to say is perhaps nasty to the Conservative party. To get some ``eggs'' politically, you have to have opponents in the Maritimes. But I have yet to see the Conservatives wake up and participate in this debate.

The people feel like hostages in this situation. What means do they have to get a hearing?

You will allow me to wet my whistle -

.1015

How are the people in the Maritimes to vent their grievances? Madam Chair, by going before parliamentary committees, where we are at present. I observed it again last week; people are calling us in our offices - because Gaspé is on the Baie des Chaleurs, opposite New Brunswick, where our cousins reside - and telling us that it is inconceivable and that they absolutely must be heard. I reply to them that we are pressuring as best we can, but that we are not the ones with the keys to the kingdom.

You see, Madam Chair, that there are many things still to be examined in this reform. In my opinion, the only way to make progress on this matter, whether the government calls it reform of unemployment insurance or reform of employment insurance, is to work at establishing a genuine partnership with the people.

Furthermore, doesn't the so-called employment insurance constitute in itself a partnership between employees and employers? It is already a partnership in which both parties have to finance themselves. Now, these two parties are hoping, as time goes by, to find a mechanism that will enable them to cope with what is coming. At present, we are venturing off the beaten path and knocking everything over. I have found nothing in the Red Book to indicate that the government sought a mandate in the election to raise the issue and resolve the problem by reforming unemployment insurance.

You see the number of anxieties beating down upon the people in the Maritimes in particular, whom I refer to as our cousins opposite. I see that the member from Prince Edward Island has just returned to his seat. The people in the Maritimes call me at my office to ask me what they can do.

They voted in good faith for the Liberal members - I wish to recall, Madam Chair, that there are nevertheless some Liberal members, women or men, who are very good. So I give the benefit of the doubt to the people opposite me, but the people -

[English]

Mr. Proud: Name them.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You want me to name them. Ah, it might be easy for me to perform that feat of memory, but I am told it might make some people jealous. It would be easier to start with the people who are not in good faith.

[English]

Mr. Proud: It's hard to think of one right off the top.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order, order!

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Madam Chair, you see how easy it is to lose the thread of one's ideas when you wake up slightly the people opposite.

[English]

Mr. Easter: It's not the first time.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Madam Chair, I have tried to demonstrate to you that the people in the Maritimes, who are represented by Liberals, feel somewhat in a jam because they have no way to express themselves other than through parliamentary committees. That is why we are asking that there be no time constraint.

To resume my thought, unemployment insurance, which subsequently will be referred to as employment insurance, is based on a principle of partnership between employees and employers. We must therefore provide these groups with all the necessary latitude to discuss and to mull things over.

There is also the fact that people are used to the present system. I mean by this that we should not be surprised if, whenever we want to change a comma in the clauses of this bill, we are confronted with a certain indignation and resistance from the people. Hence the importance of giving ourselves maximum time, and in particular not having any definite deadline, as a clear reflection of the need for the partnership.

How can we get someone involved in good faith in the process if, at the point of departure, we threaten him? Where I come from, in the schoolyard, when a schoolmate threatened to break your arm, you were not close friends with him. It was understood that this guy was not respected, but feared.

.1020

Do you want to establish a punitive system? I don't think that is the objective. At least, I'd like to think so. I hope that someone opposite will explain to us today, at least in a preamble, that the objective of this bill is not to be repressive or to attack the havenots.

When we speak of the havenots, we should know that often the so-called havenots have not had an opportunity to go to school for as long as you and I, or our colleagues. In passing, Madam Chair, my wife has always said to me that if I went to school a little longer than she did, it was because I was slower to understand. I am using this anecdote to try to show that, although the people I represent don't all have a university degree, they have attended the school of life and know how to count. They know very well that to support a family you need money. They know very well that we have to control our expenditures and they manage their household budgets accordingly.

They expect, of course, that the people they duly elected will not be less able than themselves. They even think, since they are not stupid and they had the opportunity to vote for someone, that this person should be a bit more able than them. They are therefore hoping that we are going to try -

I am an idealist. I still think that in an election you try to improve the state of things. That is no doubt the reason why I work for the Bloc Québécois.

I have not finished, Madam Chair. I am still at the first faltering attempts in what I will be trying to say in the course of this day.

You understand that it is very important to reflect this notion, which is primordial and essential to the future course of Canadian society over the coming decades. Whether or not we are still together in the future, the three currents of thought that exist in Canada will be the source of whatever exists in each of our societies in the future. As for me, I am participating in good faith in whatever will be said and done here.

I see that we have changed chairs.

I come back to the idea of partnership, which constitutes my main theme. I have not yet managed to talk about my fishermen. I would like to demonstrate how necessary the spirit of partnership is and how it will be the cornerstone of everything that must be done. There is nothing in the schoolbooks on how to manage downsizing. I think we are learning it together here, this morning. Managing downsizing does not mean learning to be plucked like a duck without squawking.

Madam Chair, each duck that we are will agree to lose a few feathers once confidence is re-established thanks to the spirit of partnership we will have created, and when each of the people in the 295 ridings in Canada understands the ins and outs of the said reform, and, above all, supports them.

Hearing is one thing, understanding is another. I may sometimes listen to Scottish music or African music. I don't understand it, I hear it. I can appreciate the tonality of this music, the sensibility it expresses, but it seems difficult to me because I do not understand it.

.1230

[Translation]

There will come a time when there is no more time. Even if today we said in the next minute that we were prepared to accept this, there would be too much time between now and Monday evening. That seems to me fairly illogical.

I want to understand the Reform Party's wish to try to make this more realistic, more right, even though we ultimately don't know at all what the motion's final form will be. This is becoming very complicated and we're wasting a great deal of time on procedural matters because the Liberals have put a motion that does not concern the subject matter.

We are bogging down in the subamendment because Liberals have made a number of errors. The first was a strategic error. They thought that, being in the majority, they could do what they wanted, when they wanted, how they wanted. We very distinctly sensed in the parliamentary secretary's attitude that a Parliament in which there were only one party would suit him fine. In fact, if there were only he to lead, that would also suit him fine.

After this strategic error, if the Liberals had been a little more patient, the opposition would have had to provide content, to ask questions, to move the debate forward on each of the clauses of the bill.

The government also could have taken part through the quality of its arguments. It had the chance to receive informative briefings that were much more thorough than the opposition received.

The figures on the three amendments tabled last Thursday evening were communicated to us at seven o'clock on Thursday, but it appears they had been discussing them for a week or two and that they knew where they were heading. We would have had to change gears immediately and get on the same wavelength.

There was a strategic error due to a lack of patience, but it goes deeper than that. The Liberal Party finds it hard to live with democracy. In the Reform Party's motion, there is a desire to rule on the principle and to take the necessary time to debate the question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Stick to the subject.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I am on the subject, Madam Chair. I just mentioned the subamendment and said that the Liberal Party does not have a philosophy of government consistent with accepting an amendment of this kind.

The government lacks patience. On a bill on which a great deal of time and energy was apparently spent, the government could be impatient and not accept a subamendment such as that by the Reform Party. What I find sadder, however, is that the government conducts itself in the same way in all its relations with the provinces.

Consider its conduct during the Health Forum, for example. Instead of sitting down, negotiating and ensuring that the provinces were around the table to see what kind of compromises they could reach with it, it told them: ``We made this offer to you and that's how it's going to be. If you don't like it, sit down in back.'' That's how the government put the Health Forum in its place. Today, it's going around and spending citizens' money, but the provinces won't support the recommendations that have come out of it because they didn't take part in them. The government won't be able to use them because this is out of its jurisdiction, unless it decides to encroach on the provinces' jurisdiction once again, which would be unacceptable.

So this is an example of conduct that makes us understand why the Liberal government will probably be against the Reform Party's subamendment to permit longer debates on the question in committee.

The government has adopted the same attitude on labour matters in its relations with the provinces. You could write books on it. It is adopting precisely the same kind of attitude with respect to the subamendment.

In labour matters, it doesn't want to allow time for negotiations. It cancels meetings. The Minister of State for Unemployment and Solidarity Quebec recently issued a press release on its decision to cancel a meeting and to take action. At the same time as the Minister's willingness to collaborate was expressed, the budget of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre was cut by $40 million and another $12 million cut was made to the Older Workers Assistance Program. Five new programs are being introduced in Ottawa that duplicate five programs already existing in Quebec. Here we are talking directly about the bill under consideration.

There is a clause that identifies these five new employment programs. We should take the time to look at them. The opposition should be able to explain to the government that these programs already exist in Quebec and if the federal government implements them, it will be duplicating services once again.

.1235

To do this, we need time. We also need time to talk about the essential issue, which is clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The essential issue for the government is not to win its procedural battle. It must have the best possible statute and, in order to do so, it must allow debate during the clause-by-clause consideration. We must have the time to consider each clause. In considering the clause that concerns employment problems, we must be able to say that equivalent programs exist in Quebec.

I wonder why, instead of creating an additional bureaucracy, the federal government wouldn't do what the Conseil du patronat du Québec has suggested it to do, that is to say have the Canada Employment Centres report to the Government of Quebec. We would then be able to benefit from people's skills. There are some highly qualified people in the employment centres, but the government's aggressive intervention in this area is undermining efficiency.

If we had the time to conduct this kind of debate, if the Reform Party's subamendment were considered, we could adopt a more constructive approach. Why can this date of June 23 seem reasonable? Because it doesn't prevent the reform from being introduced on July 1.

Under the current program, the government, whose first objective is to solve the deficit problem, is collecting the employers' and employees' money at a startling rate. We spoke of $1 billion last year, $5 billion this year and $5 billion next year. The unemployment insurance fund has recorded surpluses that have increased almost exponentially and it is becoming the government's cash cow.

The debate can indeed last until June 23 and even longer. However, we won't rule out the possibility that the government might cut its deficit by other means than outside loans because it is no longer able to borrow.

It has exhausted its borrowing power and the only solution is to tap internal sources, funds to which it does not contribute, including the unemployment insurance fund, which is constituted by employers and employees.

If we had until June 23 to analyze this situation, the committee could give another hearing to people who have concrete proposals on the subject. There are people who asked us why we did not have a structure similar to the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail where there are employers' representatives and employees' representatives.

If we had until June 23 to see these people again and to take the time to focus on an operation such as this, perhaps we could resolve a great many difficulties. Citizens' main argument is that they contribute to this fund, they are providing the money, but that they don't control it. This could be settled by June 23. The amendment may be a good one. In our view, it may be worth the trouble to put it forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand we must accept a substitution. Moreover, I welcome the person who is taking over the chair.

I would like to cite another example to show how appropriate it is to assess the subamendment very carefully. In Bill C-12, the government has provided for a reduction in maximum insurable earnings. We thought there was room in the unemployment insurance reform to debate such a measure, but we realize that Bill C-31 contains exactly the same measure.

There is another bill in the House that will have retroactive effect so that these measures can come into effect on January 1, 1996. Why is the government trying to introduce the same provision twice in two different bills? The amendment would enable us to continue clause-by-clause consideration. We could ask questions and see what the government's objective is. Is an attempt being made by one means or another to find a solution to achieve this objective? This matter is beginning to seem somewhat like a manipulation of Parliament. The same thing is going to be done by two different means, but the opposition has fortunately realized this and will raise this question in committee. We will raise it on Bill C-31, which it is the opposition's role to do, and I hope succeed in leading the government to adopt a single position and also pass relevant amendments.

.1240

This isn't an ordinary situation. The ceiling is being lowered from $42,000 to $39,000, whereas, at the same time, the government is agreeing to give $900 million to very high income earners who contribute less to the unemployment insurance fund and to deficit reduction.

An identical amount of $900 million is being taken from people who previously did not contribute, who work less than 14 hours a week. They did not receive unemployment insurance benefits. They will now have the opportunity to pay premiums and a number of them will have the opportunity of never being able to receive unemployment insurance. It will be quite frustrating, thank you very much.

Between now and June 23, I would like us to be able to meet with graduates from CEGEPs and colleges in Canada and Quebec who are working in seasonal fields and who will be coming into the job market. As a result of the reform, they will be in for a little surprise this year. Previously, 300 hours were required, that is 15 hours a week for 20 weeks, in order to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. As of today, it will take 910.

The first job of people who work in applied ecology, wildlife management, tourism and recreation is often a summer job that lasts into the early fall. They pay premiums and earn more than $2,000. So they won't have any refund or unemployment insurance benefits. People will say that, in addition to contributing to a fund they don't control, they won't be able to draw benefits. What's to be done about all this?

In the second year, the young person will say: ``Boss, can we come to an agreement? You don't declare unemployment insurance, neither of us will need to pay premiums and we'll all be ahead. We'll work on a clandestine basis.'' Six months later, that person is caught in this situation. Authorities will decide that he's an abuser and it will be said: ``People on unemployment insurance are abusers.'' It's the conditions that we create that will have led to this kind of conduct. The period we are about to go through, the end of the school year and the start of new jobs, is a very interesting period to study.

In Bills C-31 and C-12, the government is flouting the parliamentary process and ultimately admitting that the purpose of the House of Commons is merely to ratify the government's decisions. We see here a little of the philosophy that we have observed in committee: ``Everything has to be finished by Friday evening and the bill sent back to the House. That's what we've decided and that's how we see matters.'' They have forgotten that the people have not been elected by the government, but by a public that is asking them to make representations.

Where I come from, people are not at all frustrated by the fact that we are taking the time to address the unemployment insurance program. No one in my riding is going to get up and tell me: ``Really, Paul, you spent too much time on that. You should have gone over it more quickly and accepted the conditions. We are going to experience the situation, but it's not serious. We're going to have financial difficulties, but that's not serious.''

There were 5,000 persons at the demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup last week. There were union and community organizers, but what struck me was that there mainly ordinary people, people used to using the unemployment insurance program because they need it to stay alive. One of the program's initial objectives was to guarantee an income between jobs. This is the program that was recognized as being the best economic regulator during recessions. It's better than income tax or any other system, because the effect is immediate. Even if there is an economic slowdown, people receive unemployment insurance cheques and they can continue to consume. This prevents economic fluctuations from affecting people's standard of living and enables them to survive. It can't be denied that the program has encouraging effects.

When someone receives a sufficient unemployment cheque, he can continue paying for his house, if it isn't paid for. But if he has no unemployment insurance cheques or cheques that are too small, which will be the case under the current reform, he will no longer be able to pay for his house. Housing prices will fall. Doesn't that remind you of something? This is exactly what happened in 1929-1930.

.1245

That's why we created the social programs. It was to prevent this kind of situation from occurring. The Liberal government must be sensitive to these arguments. There is a desire for social fairness in its tradition.

Some previous Liberal governments were influenced by the CCF, by the New Democratic Party. Certain social values were adopted by the Liberals, but not on the same side of the spectrum. They shifted toward the right, and we are living with that situation today.

To return to the question of C-12 and C-31, didn't the government introduce C-31 because it took it for granted that Bill C-12 would not be passed in the time provided? It said to itself: ``We're off to a bad start with Bill C-12. There is strong opposition. There are people everywhere: 5,000 people went to the Prime Minister's office in Shawinigan and 5,000 people demonstrated in Rivière-du-Loup last week. There are people in the Maritimes who held parallel hearings and they don't seem to be letting up.''

The government made a small effort. It moved some minor amendments saying: ``By calculating on the basis of 26 weeks, we'll be able to calm down enough people and we'll change the divisor credit to 14 instead of 16. That will buy us some peace.''

The problem? This doesn't work. There is a question of money that affects people, but there is also a question of dignity. And dignity can never be bought. People will not let themselves be told that they were repeat U.I. users because they were laggards and did not feel like working. They won't take it as long as the government has not budged from a position such as this.

If the government has amendments to move on the disappearance of the intensity rule, we'll talk about it. When you are ready to eliminate the shameful one percent salary reduction for each 20-week period of unemployment insurance use, when the government admits that, in order to reduce the number of seasonal claimants, a winter tourism industry must be created and the new economy developed so that there is a better match between worker training and available jobs and a real contribution made, through taxation, to job creation, then we'll be ready to talk about real amendments.

I don't believe the time is past. In this sense, the Reform Party's amendment is promising. I met with groups of 20, 50, 150 persons concerning the reform. Each time, we explained its content and people understood its final result very well. They understood perfectly well the terrible way in which the government wanted to tap low-income earners in order to help in deficit reduction, whereas the same kind of effort was not being required by those who could afford it.

The more time we have to analyze the bill, the more seriously we'll do it and the better position we'll be in to get organized to produce a proper analysis and suitable recommendations. We have studied the bill thoroughly. The three regular members of the committee toured Canada two years ago and they've been working actively for the past year.

The Bloc québécois members are now increasingly aware of the importance of this issue. For the past few days, people have been spelling each other off in order to lend us a hand and I find the work conducted by the entire team is fantastic. Everyone in his respective walk of life has had clear messages to send on this subject.

When the demonstration took place in Rivière-du-Loup, I made a moral commitment to the people who were there to devote all the time it takes to consideration of all the bill's clauses and to produce the best possible statute. People told me not to accept just anything. Their instructions were very clear, very well defined. We were told that, unless there is an adequate reform, they prefer that the government withdraw its bill. It would be much better that way.

.1250

Will the Reform Party's subamendment stop the government steam roller? I'm not convinced it will, but I think it will enable us to review the entire current debate on this point. But that doesn't at all mean that we'll be able to concur in the motion. Whatever limit is imposed by the manoeuvre, the connection must be made with the main motion that the committee limit consideration of each clause of the bill to five minutes of debate. Whether we finish on April 29 or on June 22 at the latest, there must be five minutes of debate per clause. This encourages that current conduct of the government, which could take delaying measures so that we could never debate the bill in an exhaustive manner.

Since we began clause-by-clause consideration, the Liberal government has agreed to discuss the real issues for two hours. But it became so intolerable that it found a delaying measure.

There were too many arguments that the bill was not a good one. In the first 10 minutes, we found a weakness in the definition of ``employment benefits''. We explained that, in French, this was an unacceptable expression that created complications and inadequate interpretations for those using the unemployment insurance program. We immediately realized that there was something to work on there.

Then we discussed the definition of ``affidavit''. This is a new definition in the act. Previously, the definition in other statutes had been used. The word ``affidavit'' appeared in the act, but it was not defined. This definition was added. We asked questions that were not in vain because, in the end, the expert said it would enable us to have an exclusive definition for Bill C-12 and to do what we want to do more effectively. It is an important and fundamental element. We even said that it would be particularly useful for criminal or civil proceedings.

When you receive this kind of comment, the suggestion to make is that you will review the definition. If it indeed concerns a question of criminal or civil proceedings, let us state it in the definition so that a citizen who reports to an unemployment centre and who is asked to sign the bottom of his statement knows exactly what he's doing. Sometimes when you put your hand in the ringer, your entire arm can go through, and then you don't really know why you got the result you did.

Here now is an entirely different example to show you our good faith. I had a question on labour disputes. The experts gave me an excellent answer and the matter was settled.

So there are a great many important factors. That's why the connection with the subamendment is direct. Spending two hours on the definitions doesn't mean we're not doing our work. The definitions in a contract or a statute are very important. A definition states exactly what word is used and what meaning it has in the statute in force. All eventual legal decisions will be linked to that.

I made a demonstration for the definition of ``insurable employment'' in order to show that we were not engaging in systematic obstruction. ``Insurable employment'' is defined in clause 5. We also debated the content of clause 5. The Liberal majority wanted us to stand clause 2 because we had found so many holes in the cheese that we preferred to set it to one side, let it age and find ways of improving it. As it is not a cheese made from unpasteurized milk, there was no discussion on the health aspects of the matter.

.1255

The Reform Party's subamendment must be seen in the context of the motion's adoption. If the motion were agreed to, we could have five minutes of debate per clause, but that would last until Saturday, June 22. This is a direct incentive to delinquent behaviour. If you tell me it will be five minutes per clause in any case, then every day I will have to find a debating point in order to prevent us from considering more than one clause in the morning. At 9:00 or 9:05 a.m., consideration of the clause will be over and, for the rest of the time, we'll find something to say on another point so that we can consider the clauses thoroughly. There will be procedural battles here and there.

There are a number of clauses that take five minutes to read, including the clause on the fisheries that we saw this morning. The unemployment insurance program for fishermen is a separate program. There are all kinds of different factors. Unemployment insurance benefits are calculated in an entirely different way for fishermen.

This requires a very particular form of matching because the fishing seasons often last fewer weeks than would be required to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. The situation is therefore fairly abnormal. A fisherman is entitled to fish for 10 35-hour weeks, which amounts to 350 hours. We can't afford to give him the additional hours.

That person finishes his work and cannot receive unemployment insurance. Nor can he change overnight into a computer technician. That's not how it works. These are not automatons.

This is going to cause people to look for more hours, to move. There are regions that have developed a healthy tourist industry enabling them to keep people with the aid of unemployment insurance. Under the new program, this labour force will tend to go away. When there is a shortage of hours in eastern Quebec, people will go to Quebec City, Montréal, Ontario or the Maritimes in order to find other jobs and may not return to the region in question.

We will experience what we are experiencing already, that is that we train the labour, teach people to work properly and see them move to the large cities. This will result in a widespread search for small jobs.

How can anyone manage to find two, three, five, seven, nine or 14 hours? An employee will have to fight with his employer who has had him work 10 solid 40-hour weeks. That will mean 400 hours. The employee doesn't want three eight-hour weeks because those weeks will count under the unemployment insurance program and he will receive lower benefits. The employee prefers weeks of 42, 43 or 45 hours; he'll do the four or five additional hours later. But unfortunately, he'll get caught by the inspector: he'll be another abuser.

When we create a system that encourages delinquent behaviour, we are not doing our job as members. We have to find a way to prevent this kind of situation. Some motions must be considered. The subamendment would give us more time to talk about it and this could be a good idea. But now, even if we have until June 23 to consider it, we will have only five minutes per clause. A number of dilatory measures will be necessary so that we can talk about it.

Perhaps there's a government strategy behind this. To date, the government has realized that, from the start, only the opposition has wanted to discuss each of the clauses. The Liberals introduced a dilatory measure, turned the debate to another kind of motion and thus avoided debating the real issue. Perhaps with the motion introduced, with the five-minute limit per clause, the Liberals are saying that the opposition will have to find dilatory measures. They'll be able to tell the opposition members that it is they who are dragging out the debate. I don't think they're being that calculating.

.1300

Mr. Allmand: We hear the bells for the vote.

Mr. Crête: Ah! they've changed the bells. That's not a bad idea. Here, we're lucky to hear about the bells. If it had been possible, the government would have taken us out to the building parking lot, under cover of darkness, to be sure that as few people as possible could see the debate on the unemployment insurance reform. Let's say that this isn't the debate that the government seems to be the proudest of.

With its tradition, the Liberal Party is hoping that the debate will be as short as possible. As to the subamendment, it will certainly be against it because, in its view, the longer the debate lasts, the fewer points it will score and the greater chance there is that the bill's opponents will not accept it. People in all camps are finding that it makes no sense and that it's contrary to what they were told during the 1993 election campaign.

In politics, you must never take people for imbeciles. Sometimes they need time to decide. The Conservatives learned this lesson the last time. A voter always gets his member in the end. It may take four years, sometimes eight. Sometimes there is a minor diversion that enables a member to stay another term. However, when there is no logic in the attitude he adopts, no respect for democracy, when the government does not allow the necessary time for debate, at some point, there is always a change in its fortunes.

So on the Reform Party's subamendment, which requests that the debate run until Saturday, June 22, which is the planned date for the end of our debates here, I would like us to ensure that we do not find ourselves working hastily until the end of June. That would be the ultimate absurdity. This is the end of April, we have time ahead of us and my real fundamental choice would be that we be able to withdraw this entire motion because it is not logical and calls into question our role as the opposition.

An amendment such as this somewhat resembles those that the Liberal members moved in committee. They said that a horrible situation was arising in the reform and that, as Liberal members, they were unable to change their government's position, but that they were at least going to try to do their work as well as possible and find solutions to a false problem. They proposed a certain number.

The Reform Party's subamendment is somewhat similar. At least give us the time, if possible, even though the content of the clause is unacceptable. With five minutes of debate under the amendment, we will at least have a little time. Perhaps if the amendment were agreed to, we could move another amendment to the motion. If the subamendment were agreed to as such, if we could go until June 22, we could perhaps agree to another amendment so that consideration of each clause would be of unlimited duration.

If there were a consensus in the committee, it would be a good idea for us to set June 23 as the limit, but with respect to the main motion, for us to restore the possibility of debate that would take the necessary time, which would be a very good idea. This would provide proof of the Liberal majority's independence from the government. It is true that you are members of the Liberal government, but in committee, you are also acting as elected representatives. In our parliamentary system, when the committees manage to acquire a certain flexibility, they manage to adopt more democratic solutions that are more consistent with what people want.

What more could the Reform Party's amendment give us? Well, we could get to the bottom of the issue of abusers. Three weeks ago, the Minister managed to change public opinion by saying that the main purpose of the reform was to combat abusers.

.1305

Yesterday, the balloon burst: we learned that abusers represented four percent of a population of three million. About half of overpayments are the result of errors by the Commission or individuals, not of fraudulent acts. There isn't much flexibility left. If we got organized to amend a few aspects of the act, for example, by making it possible to earn a little more money than what is authorized by receiving benefits, the amount of fraud would no doubt decline further. When, as the Reform Party's amendment provides, you can earn $50 more each week than the authorized amount, it's not so bad. But if people were permitted to earn $100, many investigators from the Departments of National Revenue and Human Resources Development would perhaps be looking for a job.

An investigation is costly. Sometimes an investigation is launched over a matter of $1,000 and there are costs of $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000, all as a result of the principle that the act must be complied with. Perhaps there is a way to soften the amendments, to adjust the text so as not to create abusers. As it is drafted, the bill generates abusers. On this point, we could find a number of interesting solutions for all Quebeckers and Canadians between now and June 22.

On page 48 of the bill, in the part on employment benefits and national employment service, clause 57, at line 22, reads:

... the Commission shall work in concert with the government of each province in which employment benefits and support measures are to be implemented in designing the benefits and measures, determining how they are to be implemented and establishing the framework for evaluating their success.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Crête, are you doing clause-by-clause in a roundabout manner?

Mr. Easter: A convoluted way.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: No.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): It seems to me some really good points are being made. If we were on the clauses, we could have those amendments and suggestions, but the way in which you are operating at this point in time and the methods that are being used by your speakers seem to indicate that you're doing the clause-by-clause without the whole committee with you on the clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'm very proud. I just realized that I am in the process of convincing you. I have shown you that, if we did the clause-by-clause consideration, we would move much more quickly. This is what we've been trying to do for the past 24 hours. I am very pleased, very satisfied to see that, if we analyzed certain questions clause by clause, we would advance more quickly than by debating a motion asking us to check whether we should work on each clause for five minutes until June 23.

The debate would be much more productive. But I don't have the choice; I have the Liberal Party's motion, amended by itself and by the Reform Party, and I'm trying to work with that in order to conduct a clause-by-clause consideration of the unemployment insurance bill. This is the mandate that the people of my riding have given me. With my lack of parliamentary experience, I'm looking for a solution. The only way I have found is to consider a certain number of clauses. If that convinces you, I will take others in order to enable other members to seize the argument and correct their perceptions. Perhaps we could then get away from this motion as soon as possible.

If the Liberals are prepared to withdraw their motion and to return to clause-by-clause consideration, I see no objection.

[English]

Mr. Easter: Do you want to take a vote on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: We have to check to see whether the rules of procedure permit it.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): It requires unanimous consent.

Mr. Crête: It requires unanimous consent. We'll see what can be done when we get to that point. I see our argument is beginning to have its effect.

.1310

I'm going to give you a few ...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Nault, on a point of order.

Mr. Nault: On a point of order, it would be interesting to know if the representative of the Bloc is making an offer to the government as to what he would like to have. We haven't heard one single word from the Bloc in the last two days about what they would prefer versus the five minutes. What is he suggesting? Is he suggesting ten minutes? Is he suggesting seven minutes? He hasn't made an amendment. He hasn't made anything. We're quite prepared to have this discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Our motion is still the same as it was at the outset. We want to be able to move on to clause ...

Some hon. members: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Crête: That's what I said five minutes ago. If the government withdrew this motion, I think the Reform Party would agree with us that we should go back to clause-by-clause consideration and talk about it until we have exhausted the arguments.

I see no problem. We have tried to convince you of that from the outset. It was you who introduced the motion to tell us there had to be a five-minute limit for each clause.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, we could take this position of the Bloc Québécois seriously if they had not not spent four hours on the first clause. If they had shown some reasonableness when we discussed the first clause, we would be quite willing to pursue the policy he's suggesting now. But the behaviour yesterday indicated to us that there was no willingness to proceed. So if they have an alternative offer, we on this side would be quite pleased to amend our clause and agree on some reasonable allocation of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I see that certain members from the other side have not yet go to the arguments that I have presented and that you have agreed to hear. The time we spent on the first clause was excessive.

How many definitions are there in clause 2? Probably 45 or 50.

[English]

Mr. Nault: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, if in fact the Bloc is saying that a day for a clause is not excessive, we'd be here for 180 days. We didn't even finish the first clause and we were at it the whole day. Now, if the member is suggesting in all seriousness that he thinks that's not excessive, then, really, why waste our time having this discussion? If he's serious about getting on to clause-by-clause, then accept some sort of time....

Mr. de Savoye: That's not a point of order; that's debate.

Mr. Nault: It's ridiculous to say that it wasn't excessive the other day. We didn't get through one clause and it went on all day. Now, Madam Chairman, that works out to 180 days, so obviously they're not serious.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay, your point is made.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: So may I present my arguments again? I understood that the point of order had not been allowed.

[English]

Mr. Easter: Madam Chair, on a point of order, so that we're clear here that we really don't have an offer, I gather it was just smoke and mirrors on the honourable member's part.

Mr. Nault: It was more smoke and mirrors.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I could say that the motion is not mine. It was the Liberals who made it. If anyone has something to do with that, it is you. If I tell you to withdraw your motion, you will answer me that it is not my business.

It seems to me that politically mature action must be taken. You must realize that there has been a strategic error. You have to see that you were impatient. You have to learn to live the parliamentary life and to allow the opposition to play its role.

[English]

Mr. Nault: That's clear. We know. Carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would like to add that spending one day on a clause is not excessive when it comes to the definitions.

[English]

Mr. Nault: It's 180 days to....

[Translation]

An honourable member: Could we have a little order, Madam Chair, please?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order! Order!

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to return to the clause of which I was speaking when ....

Mr. Dubé: You were interrupted.

Mr. Crête: No, there were a number of interesting remarks. Madam Chair recognized that my argument had convinced her somewhat. I find that interesting.

Mr. Dubé: Then it's worth the trouble continuing.

Mr. Crête: I think it would be interesting to draw a parallel with the job creation programs. We would see that, if we had an additional period of time to consider them, it would be very interesting.

On the one hand, the federal government provides in its bill for five job creation programs.

.1315

We may applaud the fact that these five programs replace a host of programs that previously existed and which we didn't really think suited us.

The problem is that, at the same time, in Quebec, the Minister of State for Employment and Solidarity has taken a position and said that Ottawa is introducing five new programs that already exist in Quebec. We are falling into government duplication here.

Madam Chair, could you please recall people to order?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order, order! The room is getting very noisy.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'm going to wonder how relevant my arguments are because the Liberals no longer seem interesting in listening. I really wonder what it takes to convince them.

I understand fairly well the situation in which the Liberal majority currently finds itself. It has amended a motion that leads nowhere. It would take an act of courage and political maturity on its part to request the committee's consent to withdraw its motion, but it does not seem prepared to do so at present.

I will conclude my presentation by saying that the Reform Party's subamendment must be considered from the standpoint of the motion as a whole. I see a light at the end of the tunnel which, I would like to submit to my friend from Lévis, among others, who has just rejoined us. If we accepted the Reform Party's amendment and there was then another amendment, but to the member's main motion, stating that we will go until June 23, but that the five-minute limit per clause will be removed so that we can have the time to consider each clause carefully, perhaps the motion would do. The committee could then be proud of its work, having clearly shown that the June 23 limit does not restrict the government at all in financial terms. The Liberals currently have the opportunity to accumulate a surplus in the fund, whether the bill is passed or not. They have even taken the liberty of tabling two bills at the same time in order to obtain the same result.

With such amendments, I believe we could reach an interesting resolution. I hope the government supports our position so that we can produce a completely transformed bill that will enable us to return to our ridings and say that we have really done good work, that we produced solid results, that there will no longer be any penalties for seasonal workers and that people entering the job market will be able to do so on proper terms and be entitled to unemployment insurance.

We will then have a reform that takes into account the new job market in which there are many part-time jobs. It is true that we need to change the unemployment insurance reform in a fairly fundamental way.

Mr. Allmand: I am on the government side and I'm going to support your amendments.

Mr. Crête: So that we can get out our amendments ...

Mr. Allmand: We need a clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Crête: ... we must have the right to speak on the motion and to debate clause by clause.

The Liberals have closed the door to clause-by-clause consideration. They have decided that we will have no more than five minutes. From that point on, it has become a debate between unequal sides. We cannot present our arguments in four minutes.

Take the example of control of the unemployment insurance fund. Let's say we have a motion to make. For the unemployment insurance fund, we want to have a structure similar to that of the Quebec Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. There will be private and public employers, union members, self-employed workers and people representing the entire job market, and the organization's new board of directors will manage the unemployment insurance fund. The government will be able to have representatives on the board of directors, but in proportion to the investment it makes. At present, it does not contribute a cent; it will not be very strongly represented.

.1320

If the government decided to put money into programs other than unemployment insurance, people would agree. Employers and employees who pay the premiums would then be entirely satisfied that their premiums would be used only to finance benefits for unemployment, that is to say the inactive period between two jobs. They would then completely agree that the government could, using different funds, be responsible for all the additional programs it wishes to introduce.

However, five minutes is not enough to move such an amendment. The content is important and there is a whole regulatory structure. When we appoint this organization, who will proceed with the appointments? How will it be done? This has to be written in a statute. We cannot settle all this in five minutes.

We have been repeating it from the start: five minutes is not enough. Since the Liberals moved to limit clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to five minutes, we can't do anything else but intervene to say that five minutes is not enough.

It is true that certain clauses could perhaps be dealt with in a minute and a half. I'm going to give you an example. Once we have concluded exhaustive clause-by-clause consideration of the entire bill and there remains only clause 1 to agree to, clause 1 being the title, the Employment Insurance Act, I'm willing to bet we'll agree to that clause very quickly. We'll simply give the act back the name ``Unemployment Insurance Act'' since it is not an Employment Insurance Act and we'll have solved our problem.

No clause states that a person who has paid premiums is entitled to a job in consideration of his premiums. That is not what people are being guaranteed. Nowhere is it guaranteed that there will be a job in exchange for premiums. It is guaranteed that the premiums will make it possible to have benefits. The premiums will enable people to be eligible for courses or to enhance their employability, I admit, but there's a difference between enhancing one's employability and finding a job.

The time period requested by the Reform Party could be useful. We could use it during this period ending on June 23 to add an entire chapter on measures that could really improve employment. We mainly want to improve employment, not only employability. We do not want there to be 27 persons for the same job, but rather ensure that those 27 persons can choose from 20, 22 or 23 proposed jobs. How should we proceed in order to make this adjustment?

This would lead us, for example, to associate with the tactical committee on taxation announced by the Minister of Finance because the members of that committee could help us find answers in this area. If we had until June 23 to do this kind of work, this would become interesting. And perhaps I would then be obliged to correct what I said concerning clause 1. If there was a complete chapter really addressing ways of creating employment, we could change the title to ``Employment and Unemployment Insurance Act'' or ``Unemployment and Employment Insurance Act'', so that the title truly reflects the actual situation.

We currently have one product with one name, one form of packaging, but the product does not coincide with what is said. It is very dangerous because it creates illusions that ultimately frustrate those who contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. There are terrible frustrations for an employer these days. Under the Reform Party's amendment, we could hear witnesses again between now and June 23.

If we agree to the Liberals' motion, that is to say five minutes for consideration of each clause, we will have time left which we can put to good use by hearing new witnesses. I believe this is an interesting idea. For any given clause, we could spend the day hearing new witnesses who wish to speak to us on that subject and, at the end of the day, we could spend the five minutes on the clause.

We would thus observe the five-minute limit, but perhaps there would be light at the end of the tunnel. It must be hoped that, after hearing people testify for an entire day on the employment programs and on insurable employment, the Liberals will realize that perhaps we must spend not five minutes, but 10 minutes, an hour or even two hours, if necessary, considering the clause. We'll see.

When the legislative advisers and linguistic advisers have given us their definitions, we can't say how much time it will take to make a decision. One hour or two hours would be likely. We have to spend some time on it.

So we are realizing as we speak that time is important and that the substance of the Reform Party's argument on this point is interesting. If the amendment is agreed to, that will give us some room to have the issue assessed.

.1325

It is interesting to see that, although the Reform Party was rejected by the Liberal majority, which refused to allow it another second to obtain privileged legislative advice, it has nevertheless come back with a constructive and positive amendment that would enable us to hear witnesses and to discuss ...

Mr. Dubé: We also have to talk about the findings of the studies.

Mr. Crête: Yes, we also have to discuss the findings of the studies. We have not yet examined all the studies. We have obtained only eight of 28. Perhaps there would be things to look at. I would see no objection to rehearing the committee on seasonal workers that was struck by Mr. Axworthy last year and that told us some very important things.

I admit I first thought that committee would serve no real purpose, but I was very much surprised, and I believe the Minister was even more surprised than I. The committee told us: ``No, people are not taking advantage of the system. It's not because they use unemployment insurance each year that we must think they are dishonest. It's simply that their jobs, because they are seasonal, require them to use unemployment insurance and are jobs that correspond to those things.''

I therefore think that the Reform Party's proposed amendment would make it possible to see that the subamendment may be a good idea, and even a better idea than the Liberals' amendment, the sole purpose of which is to get this bill passed as soon as possible. Between now and April 29, we will not have the time to meet all the experts and all the groups we would like to hear. We would not even have the time to summon them. The result would then be a superficial and artificial job, and I don't believe that we are considering taking on such a responsibility.

[English]

Mr. Easter: Madam Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Crête has been going on for some time about more witnesses. As I understand it, the Bloc agreed to the witness procedure, which I believe was 100 units. Are they now going back on that original agreement? We met the commitments that were agreed to by this committee originally in terms of witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: No. I don't know whether this is a point of order, but it would be a pleasure for me to answer it. I can tell you that we absolutely are not questioning the agreement we had concerning witnesses. It has been complied with in virtually every respect, except as regards the question of the experts that the majority decided to set apart. We accepted that agreement, but, tomorrow, the government and the opposition could well agree on another point and decide to hear new people in committee.

This is not going back on what was previously done, but an observation of the fact that, under the Liberal Party amendment, we still have time. Considering that we are going to stay here until next Monday evening, if we spend five minutes on each clause, that will be about 16 hours of debate, and we will still have time to meet with groups.

If the majority motion is agreed to, we must ensure, since we are still living in a democracy, that we do as much as possible in the time available. The quality of the debates will naturally suffer as a result. Consider that, for the past 24 hours, we have been debating a motion by the Liberal Party, when we could have used all that time to debate amendments!

Mr. Dubé: A contradiction.

Mr. Crête: If the Liberals had not moved this amendment, if they had agreed to listen to us on the clause-by-clause consideration, we could now have ...

[English]

Mr. Proud: I've been listening for 25 hours.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: ... completed 24 hours of real debate. We could have spent one and a half times as many hours on the clause-by-clause consideration as we are spending now. For the moment, we are scarcely at three hours.

[English]

Mr. Proud: For thirty hours I've been listening to you. That's all I've done is listen to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If we want to do the remaining 16 hours that the government wants to impose on us, that would be only 19 hours. If this motion had not been made, we could have worked for 24 hours and we would have had the time to look at everything.

.1330

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Point of order please. Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Madam Chair, I think it's somewhat difficult to deal with this issue if the member is not going to be factually correct. Quite frankly, if the amendment had not been put, we would not be sitting right now, because the intent was to sit, as you know, until midnight last night.

So right now, Madam Chair, we're still on what we call the Bloc time, which means we're just playing around with the Bloc because quite frankly we would not even be sitting until 3:30 p.m. if there was no amendment. We're still on Bloc time, which is sort of a new time in Canada, and that allows us to let them do their filibuster, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay, point of order, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I would like to rise on a point of order, Madam Chair. If the member opposite wants to debate the question, he only has to have his name put on your list and you will give him the floor for the debate at the appropriate time.

But he should not rise on a point of order and state his arguments. I would be pleased to hear him, but at the appropriate time.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, thank you for your intervention.

Mr. Crête, because there is no clock in the room, I have a feeling that we also have lost our sense of time.

Mr. Nault: It is 1:30 p.m. We are still on Bloc time.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I just want you to know that you've been speaking for over an hour.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Madam Chair, I'm very much aware of the time I'm spending on this bill. Moreover, I have been working on it seriously for two years and I believe I'm able to speak to it in a thorough and interesting manner without necessarily claiming to be an expert on the question.

My speech has also been fuelled by all the points of order raised by the opposition parties, which lead me to say other things.

When the parliamentary secretary tells me that, if we had stuck to the planned timetable, we would have finished last night at midnight, he presumes as to what we would have done. If we had all of a sudden shown a particular interest and everyone had worked energetically, I can tell you I would have been completely satisfied to do so in a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I would willingly have worked all night on it. However, I find it abnormal that we should be obliged to resume debate on clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I would like to say once again that I find the subamendment moved by the Reform Party very interesting because it offers all sorts of possibilities. I am therefore going to consider whether I should vote for it.

As it, and the other amendments to the main motion, would enable us to reopen the debate and return to the initial position which has always been that of the Bloc, that we should conduct a thorough debate and complete clause-by-clause consideration, I think that that would be a good idea. Thank you.

[English]

Some hon. members: Question.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We have one person on the list. Do you also want to be on the list speaking on the subamendment?

An hon. member: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Yes, Mr. Dubé too, Madam.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay. Is that back on the same point?

Mr. Dubé: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): A little reminder, you have spoken two or three times.

Mr. Allmand: They are new points.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No, there's no problem, but I would like to remind you of the clause.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, Mr. de Savoye, then Madam Brown, and then we are back to Mr. Dubé for his third hour.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm usually pleased to take the floor in a committee sitting, but today I am very unhappy at having to do so. I'm unhappy because I must speak to a motion that has been amended and reamended, but the essential purpose of which is to limit the length of debate not on a secondary bill, not on an accessory bill, but on a reform that is fundamental for the entire Canadian public.

.1335

It is quite clear that, on behalf of parliamentarians and the public, I cannot let this motion go its own way, be agreed to and then have harmful consequences for the reputations of the government and parliamentarians and for the public.

That is why, in the next few minutes, I'm going to try to convince the members opposite of the error they would be committing by limiting the debate. I know that if I'm unable to convince them, my colleagues, who are many, will come and take over from me because this is important. If it were not important, we would not be doing this.

It is important for today and it is important for tomorrow. With the parliamentary system being what it is, one day, those opposite us will be here and we will likely no longer be here. But they will be quite pleased that parliamentary rules of have been complied with. They will be quite content to be able to continue on the public's behalf affirming aloud the interests that must be defended.

Madam Chair, it has often been said, and a number of my colleagues have no doubt heard the same thing, that the laws are poorly made and that people are not always pleased to see how they are enforced. However, it must be understood that they are enforced in a particular way because they are made to be enforced in that way.

Why are the laws poorly made? Would it be because sufficient time and effort have not been put into them?

I come from a very different community from the one in which I have lived since October 1993. I used to work in the field of information systems, computers. I did consulting work. In a way, I left an environment where organization is important and essential and found myself, and I apologize for saying so, in an environment where disorganization seems to me to be essential.

Our laws are poorly made and I would not like that to happen to the bill that is on the table. That is what would occur if the motion before us were agreed to. I say that the laws are poorly made because the process is awkward.

As an example, I can cite the procedure for developing software products. Working groups are formed. Each element, the equivalent of a clause, is thoroughly examined by the committee members under simulation scenarios, which, in English, could be called what-if scenarios. As long as there is a grey area, as long as a question remains without a specific and necessary answer - because you can have specific answers that do not have the desired effects - as long as an element does not guarantee with certainty that its implementation will produce the desired results, you return to the worktable, you put the object back on the drawing board and you continue to refine it.

The process of developing statutes that we are going through here in the House of Commons, and not only in this committee which I would not want to target as an exception, is the complete opposite of a thorough consideration that yields expected, high-quality results.

.1340

If the legislative process of the House of Commons had to undergo ISO 9000 certification, which is increasingly becoming the quality standard for products, be they physical or intellectual, the House of Commons or a committee would never even manage to get to the start of an audit in order to receive that certification.

What is at issue is the production of high-quality statutes the results of which are reliable. We are unfortunately not at that point. We continue to construct statutes as we did a century or two ago. That is why judges and lawyers must then repair the imperfections of the statutes by what is commonly called case law.

It's somewhat as though you bought a car and asked a mechanic to diagnose its problems and finish manufacturing the car on the fly. Would you board an airplane that had been built in accordance with the legislative process used in the House of Commons? I would challenge you to do so. I'm sure no one would do it.

It takes four hours to consider definitions that will ensure that each of the other clauses is clear and comprehensible. I believe this is not only justified, but necessary and essential. Not to do so would have the effect of putting off to subsequent clauses the clarifications that should have been made at the outset, with all the negative and cross effects that would have caused.

No clause in a bill is independent from the others. Those clauses are interpreted in light of each other, are connected to each other and react to each other. And if there is only one clause in a bill that can affect other clauses, it will do so at the worst possible moment.

The worst possible moment is when someone, a member of our communities, a citizen, is subject to a court action or does not have the services to which he or she is entitled because this grey area remained. The duty of all of us around this table is to ensure that the bill that is passed is as reliable, predictable and impeccable as humanly possible.

If that takes four hours, that's in the domain of what is humanly possible, and it must be done. To refuse to do so can have consequences for individuals for which we are collectively responsible as members.

As well intentioned as the member who made the motion to limit debate may have been, this motion has unacceptable effects on our objective, which is to guarantee the quality of our legislative process. As Mr. Crête recommended a moment ago, it would be a good idea for the party in power to consider withdrawing this motion and to request this committee's unanimous consent in order to do so.

Another motion could then be made. My colleague, Mr. Crête, suggested a moment ago a few ways that seem to me promising, and I am sure you are considering them now.

.1345

I would also like to bring another point to your attention: five minutes is not a bit short; it is definitely too short. I'm going to tell you about an experience I had during the last sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice which Mr. Allmand may remember, even though he was not chairing the committee at that time.

As we were proceeding with the clause-by-clause consideration of the gun control bill, the chair had the clause read and then asked whether someone wished to speak, then she said: ``Agreed to''. Thirty to 45 seconds later, we heard the simultaneous translation, which said ``Is it agreed to?'' It has been agreed to 30 to 45 seconds earlier and it was therefore a little late to speak even if we wanted to do so.

I raised this small problem with the chair illustrating what had happened. I told her in French to signal to me when the interpreter had finished translating my remarks. When I stopped speaking, I looked at my watch and I calculated the number of seconds between the end of my sentence and the time the chair said she had heard the translation. Forty-five seconds had elapsed. She then understood perfectly well what was going on and she subsequently gave us a time period in order to react.

However, translation is not the most important element. Unlike the members opposite, who generally merely read the English version of a clause of the bill, we must read the two versions in the two languages. We must not only read them one after the other, but also read them side by side, at the same time, so as to be sure that the two texts are equivalent.

As you will no doubt guess, Madam Chair, the two texts very often are not equivalent. We cannot let that go. In Canada, the two texts have equal force of law and neither one takes precedence over the other. Imagine a judge who, having to render a judgment, considers the text in French and the text in English and discovers that the two do not say exactly the same thing. Which is the right one? They are both right.

If they are merely complementary, the problem is not that great, but if they are contradictory, and I have seen such cases, then there is a real problem. Which is the act? What was Parliament's intention?

The only way in which a judge could solve this puzzle would be to refer to the minutes of the committee to check Parliament's intention at the time that clause was agreed to.

Five minutes! Look at who is around the table and agree with me that we cannot reach good decisions in five minutes because situations such as those that I have just mentioned may occur. And they will occur because these clauses have been written by human beings and cannot be perfect. We therefore must have the time to consider all aspects of the question and to discuss them.

Madam Chair, think of yourself and your own level of stress. If you had to take a stopwatch and tell yourself that you had 18 seconds left to complete consideration of this clause, what would happen?

I understand the intention of the member opposite. His motion was certainly well intentioned, but, in my view, poorly worded.

I like Mrs. Brown's subamendment, which takes us up to June 22, because this gives a clear indication that we will take the time to do things. Between now and June 22, we would have the time to do things well. We must not limit ourselves by allowing only five minutes per clause because we will indeed reach June 22, but how, in what way and with what result? Isn't it the result that counts?

.1350

It is important that the process enable committee members to do their work and to do it well. But while we must ensure we do the work well, we must also do good work.

[English]

It's not sufficient that the process be right. We must also do the right thing.

[Translation]

This also takes time. We are not in the process of mass producing shoes in which the first, second, third and following shoes all resemble each other because they are all made on the same model. We are in the process of considering a bill in which each of the clauses is different, in which each of the clauses may or may not have an influence on another clause and in which a given clause should or perhaps should not have an influence on another clause.

We must therefore take the time to weigh all these alternatives and to ensure that we have the right results. This must be done in the right way.

Employment insurance is something that is both complex and important and it is also perhaps something that has not been appropriately named. We must also take the time to carefully assess the terms used. Insurance is generally a guarantee that we obtain by paying a certain sum of money in order to counter the harmful effects if a risk eventually materializes.

If someone purchases automobile insurance, he would agree with me that that is no doubt because that person owns an automobile. Otherwise why would that person pay a premium?

When part of the labour force is required to pay an employment insurance premium, it is normal that those persons automatically be entitled to benefits if they lose their jobs. However, this is not the case, and you know it. Certain classes of employees cannot accumulate a sufficient number of hours to draw benefits corresponding to the premiums that they will have paid. This is somewhat as though we asked someone who did not own an automobile to take out insurance against automobile accidents. This creates a problem, as you will agree.

We must not only determine whether the clauses that cover this territory are appropriately drafted, but we probably must also determine whether it is appropriate to settle this question in the manner in which it is currently settled.

At present, the number of employable people who are unemployed represents about 25 percent. Twenty-five percent of people who are able to work are unemployed, but that does not mean that those 25 percent receive unemployment insurance. No, there are only about 10 percent or perhaps 12 percent.

.1355

The employment insurance program cannot and must not have as its sole purpose the transfer of amounts of money to people who lose their jobs. This legislative program must also improve people's employability and help them find a job. The defect of this program is that it is aimed at only 40 percent of the unemployed population. What do we do with the other 60 percent? They will be abandoned.

Of course, the provincial programs will necessarily have to compensate. Has any provision been made for coordinating the federal and provincial programs? The single window has often been mentioned. We know that there is general consensus in Quebec that all management of labour issues should be handed over to Quebec.

When we do the clause-by-clause consideration of the points I have just discussed, Madam Chair, we will wish to inform all the members of this committee in an appropriate manner so that the decision made is the best one. Reducing consideration of each of these points to five minutes is not at all what is required. We are not enabling the process to follow the course it should take and we are not allowing ourselves to reach an informed and satisfactory conclusion for the public as a whole.

For a number of decades, as a result of the unemployment insurance program, we have established a balance in our society between the various forces of consumption and production. This program is not only limited strictly to the interests of the unemployed. It is also a macroeconomic tool to managing capital movements or circulation so as to maintain a certain consumption capacity among those who have temporarily lost their jobs.

By maintaining this consumption capacity, we are also maintaining production capacity and, consequently, a balance between consumption and production. If by altering the program, we alter this balance, we must be extremely prudent and at the same time ensure that the imbalance thus caused will lead to a new balance, not to catastrophe.

Many witnesses expressed significant reservations with respect to the bill and the harmful effects it could have. Of course, the bill we have before us can be improved, thank goodness, through amendments. I was pleased a moment ago to hear Mr. Allmand say that he was preparing to move amendments that will likely eliminate or reduce the harmful effects that some witnesses anticipated.

The Bloc wishes to do the same. But these questions are complex. I know that Mr. Allmand will insist we understand the importance of the amendments he wishes to make, that he will be able to develop a well-structured argument and that he will do so in full knowledge of the facts as he has always done. We want to pay careful attention to his remarks.

Click here to go to next section

Return to Committee Home Page