Did you do this because you couldn't be specific? What's the idea behind this?
Mr. Leduc: Well, the period could change, depending on individual situations. It could be the employment period for which an individual had not reported income. It could be one week - that would be the minimum. But it could vary quite a bit. Our investigations and control staff will determine what the most appropriate period is.
Mrs. Lalonde: But if someone had to mount a defence and didn't have... The point is you will be enforcing the regulations until there's a ruling. So, you can do whatever you like. There is nothing specific here to go on. You have not actually identified that period.
It seems to me that by definition, your regulation will exceed the scope of the Clause. I guess I could ask our law clerk for help with this, but I won't. A Clause in a bill has to provide a sound footing on which to draft regulations. Here you're talking about a period determined under the regulations. But what period are we talking about? What is being referred to here?
Mr. Leduc: We're talking about a period to be determined under the regulations. This Clause gives us authority to determine that period by regulation. We will not be able to enforce this provision until we have actually defined that period in the regulations.
Mrs. Lalonde: I suppose you could draft a bill and say that the Commission will decide what is to be determined by regulation.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 38 as amended agreed to on division
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, would people be interested in taking a 15-minute break, allowing everyone to grab a bite? We'd be willing to add it on to the ten hours if the opposition so wishes, but I think it would be nice to take a 15-minute break. We're about halfway through and that would give the officials time to catch their breath and have a bite as well. That's a friendly motion for all of us in the committee.
The Chairman: We'll take it when we can.
An hon. member: Agreed.
The Chairman: We're adjourned for 15 minutes.
.1818
On Clause 39 - Penalty for employers, etc.
The Chairman: I believe we have an amendment. Madame Lalonde, is it okay if we dispense with the reading of the amendment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Why don't we...?
[English]
The Chairman: There you go - nothing has changed over dinner.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: I would move that Clause 39 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 37 and substituting the following: ``effect when the penalty is imposed.''
````Officers, etc., of corporations''
(3) If the Commission becomes aware of facts that in its opinion establish that a corporation has committed an act described in subsection (1) and that any officer, director or agent of the corporation has directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the act, the Commission may impose a penalty on the officer, director or agent, whether or not a penalty has been imposed on the corporation.
``Contravention of information requirements''
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), if the act involves the provision of information about any matter on which the fulfilment of conditions for the qualification and entitlement for receiving or continuing to receive benefits depends, the Commission may set the amount of the penalty at not more than the greater of
(a) $12,000, and
(b) the amount of the penalty imposed under section 38 on any person who made a claim for benefits based on the information provided.
``Major contraventions''
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Commission may set the amount of the penalty at an amount required or authorized by the regulations if the act is a major contravention, as defined under the regulations.''
.1820
The Chairman: Could you kindly explain the impact of this amendment?
Mr. Easter: The reason for the change...for administrative reasons it's proposed to revert to the previous situation. The employer penalty provision would be calculated based on the maximum rate of weekly benefits in effect when the penalty is imposed. Basing the penalty on the weekly benefits at the time that the penalty occurred would be resource intensive.
As part of the fraud-related initiative, a provision is made to impose a penalty on an officer or agent of a corporation who has been involved in an offence committed by the corporation, even if a penalty has not been imposed on the corporation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter.
Mrs. Lalonde and then Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: There is a difference. The previous wording was: ``in effect when the act occurred''. If we were reading this at 11 in the morning, we might discover it had quite a different meaning.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Which act are we talking about now?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: So, you want to say: ``in effect when the penalty is imposed'', instead of ``in effect when the act occurred''. There is a big difference. Since we're witnessing a downward trend in terms of the benefit rate, the employer will always be further ahead if, in the event of an investigation, the penalty is imposed later on, rather than at the time the act occurred.
If that is not the reason for this change, perhaps you could tell me what is? As time goes by, the benefits seem to get lower and lower.
[English]
Ms Smith: The proposal here is to repeat the wording that's in the current UI Act, which determines the penalty at the time it's imposed rather than when the offence occurred. The reason is for administrative simplicity so that it's frankly not necessary to go back to try to figure out exactly what the maximum benefit rate might have been under the circumstances when the claimant committed the offence. For the next five years, it will make no difference whatsoever because the maximum benefit rates are the same.
.1825
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There's really no problem. Based on the explanation Mrs. Lalonde has just given,I would suggest that we simply delete the first part of the amendment, where it says: It is moved that Clause 39 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 37 and substituting the following:
- ``effect when the penalty is imposed.''
- If we simply delete that part, we will be left with the wording currently in the bill.
Mrs. Lalonde: It has a tendency to go down.
Mr. Crête: But we're talking about a legal principle here. It is clearly preferable that the penalty be determined based on the rate in effect when the act was committed.
Mrs. Lalonde: Occurred.
Mr. Crête: Pardon?
[English]
Mr. Easter: Did you say it's a Liberal principle?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, it's a matter of principle. When a fine is imposed, it is better to know what the exact amount of the fine will be at the time you are likely to have to pay it.
[English]
The Chairman: Which means that -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We will have to stand this one.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: What information is being referred to in Sub-Clause (4)? It says: ``Notwithstanding sub-section (2)''. All of that is new, I guess.
``(4) Notwithstanding sub-section (2), if the act involves the provision of information about any matter on which the fulfilment of conditions -
- to be defined by regulation, I guess -
- - for the qualification and entitlement for receiving or continuing to receive benefits - ''
Mr. Leduc: Even though this is not specified, what is referred to here is information reported in the record of employment. As you know, when an employer terminates an employment, he must issue a record of employment containing primarily the conditions to be fulfilled for qualification and entitlement, but also any other relevant information. It is mainly this document that is referred to here.
Mrs. Lalonde: But why would that be an offence? You say:
``(4) Notwithstanding sub-section (2), if the act involves the provision of information [...] the Commission may set the amount of the penalty...''
Mr. Leduc: Yes. Sub-Clause (2) deals with the penalty. Sub-Clause (1) defines the acts which would be subject to a penalty.
If you look at Sub-Clause (1), which includes paragraphs (a) to (f), I believe, it describes the different types of acts that could lead to a penalty. Sub-Clause (2) sets out the sanction. So, what we are saying is that despite the sanctions set out in Sub-Clause (2), an even harsher penalty could be imposed for the acts defined under Sub-Clause (4).
Mrs. Lalonde: I'll repeat my question, because you still haven't answered it. Why is it an offence to provide information about any matter ``on which the fulfilment of conditions for the qualification and entitlement for receiving [...] benefits depends''?
Mr. Leduc: What this refers to is the provision of information that the individual knew was false - in other words, an employer might indicate on the record of employment that someone worked 200 hours when in fact, he only worked 100 hours.
Mrs. Lalonde: But the word ``false'' doesn't appear here.
Mr. Leduc: No, because it says ``notwithstanding sub-section (2), if the act involves...'' You have to refer back to Sub-Clause 39 (1). The two have to be read in tandem -
Mrs. Lalonde: Really!
Mr. Leduc: What you have here is an amendment.
Mrs. Lalonde: You have to be a lawyer to make sense of this wording.
Mr. Leduc: No. Just refer back to Sub-Clause 39(1) in the bill. It's because you're only looking at part of it. What we read is a motion to amend. But we can go back and have a look at Sub-Clause (2), if you like. You'll see that there it states that the penalty can be set at not more than nine times the maximum rate of weekly benefits. Sub-Clause (2) appears on page 36.
Paragraph (a) reads as follows:
``(a) made, in relation to any matter arising under this act, a representation the employer or other person knew was false or misleading;''
Those are the acts that could give rise to a penalty. So, when we arrive at Sub-Clause (4), those acts have already occurred.
.1830
An hon. member: In any case, they can set regulations if they determine that there's a problem.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I read this quickly, but I haven't been able to find the part where it mentions the penalty of $12,000. What is the amount currently set out in the bill?
Mr. Leduc: It's the amount specified in Sub-Clause 39(2) - i.e. not more than nine times the maximum rate of weekly benefits.
Mr. Dubé: I just wanted to make a comment on this point. It won't change the Clause. Once again, the problem is going back five years. Often that creates problems. If we arranged it so that starting in the first year... The government is not going to get any more money because amounts have been increased. Some people are already on the verge of bankruptcy. This will force them to declare bankruptcy.
[English]
The Chairman: That's an observation, a statement more than a question.
So this whole Clause for the subamendment, the amendment and the Clause itself will stand.
Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Where it says nine times the maximum rate of weekly benefits, the amount referred to here is for each act. Does that mean you will take into account the number of workers in a given company? Or will each person with respect to which false information has been provided be considered a separate act subject to penalty?
Mr. Leduc: As a general rule, the system will work as follows: each time an employer files a false record of employment for an employee, that will be considered to be an act giving rise to a penalty.
[English]
Subamendment allowed to stand
Amendment allowed to stand
Clause 39 allowed to stand
On Clause 40 - Limitation on imposition of penalties
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Do the time limitation and penalties set out in Clause 40 - or is it 38 or 39 - cover both workers and employers?
[English]
Clause 40 agreed to on division
On Clause 41 - Rescission, etc., of penalty
The Chairman: Apparently we have an amendment.
Mr. Nault: New Clause 41.1 comes after Clause 40.
The Chairman: Do you want to deal with it after Clause 40?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we have to pass Clause 41 first.
The Chairman: All right.
Clause 41 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, new Clause 41.1 is in the small package.
I move to amend Bill C-12 by adding, immediately after line 16 on page 37, the following:
````Warning''
41.1 (1) The Commission may issue a warning instead of setting the amount of a penalty for an act or omission under subsection 38(2) or 39(2).
``Limitation period''
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph 40(b), a warning may be issued within 72 months after the day on which the act or omission occurred.''
.1835
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty self-explanatory. This basically allows the commission to not charge people if in fact there are reasons for it and to instead issue a warning if there is something peculiar about a process. We think that just gives the commission some flexibility in cases where it's not believed to be appropriate to charge them.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I have two questions. The first has to do with the introduction of the concept of a ``warning'', because I don't believe this was part of the bill before, was it? Will this be used the way it is in labour relations - in other words, as the first or second stage of a disciplinary process, for instance? Is that the objective?
My second question has to do with the 72-month or six-year period for the Commission to issue a warning; this is twice as long as the 36 months originally set out in Clause 40. Why did you not want to keep the same period?
[English]
Ms Smith: You're correct. This is the first time the concept of warning has been introduced into the act. Currently we have a policy with regard to voluntary disclosures in circumstances of fraud. If, after having committed a fraud, a claimant chooses to come and explain and clarify the situation with the commission, we would not impose a penalty. To encourage people to make such voluntary disclosures, we don't impose a penalty. We do, however, collect the overpayments.
What we want to be able to do, nonetheless, is have that noted as an act of fraud. So if that claimant were to commit fraud a second time, they would be subject to the higher entrance requirements we discussed at new Clause 7.1.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. And there's the 72-month period.
Mr. Leduc: In actual fact, by providing for a warning to be issued in this Clause, we are only codifying the Commission's current practice. The Commission has been issuing warnings for some time, and because it wasn't a penalty, it went beyond the three years. We are now codifying that practice by providing for a six-year period.
We were asked why we didn't do the same thing for penalties - why the period was not increased there as well. As things now stand, we are confined to a three-year period. Why not move that up to six? All I can say is a policy decision was made to maintain the three-year period for penalties.
Mr. Crête: As you just mentioned, the issuance of warnings was already part of the Commission's administrative practice even though it was not part of the legislative framework. Now you are giving it greater weight by entrenching it in the act. It will operate like the first stage of a disciplinary process - for example, in the case of a grievance. Anyway, it seems like a valid comparison. Providing for a 72-month period gives a great deal of latitude. That's a very long time. Someone might have changed his behaviour within the first three years, never have committed such an act again, yet not be able to shake his past record for a long time and remain subject to a penalty later on if something happens - even if there is no connection with the first warning.
Because this is being introduced in the act, I must say I'm surprised that the period set out here is longer than the one than now appears in Clause 40. I need some time to think about this.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I think it would be important to ask two questions. One, is it true the whole relationship here dealing with warnings and fraud-related measures is to deal with the issue of large corporations and the cost of court cases? Quite frankly, as you know, when we end up in court it takes an extensive amount of money. Then we end up with the same result, and we have to deal with the costs as a government when we are in court. That's one issue. If we can get the individual and/or corporation to pay, based on a voluntary process, and the warning is issued, it's obviously much cheaper. I assume that's one of the rationales.
.1840
On the other issue, the six years, if in fact you end up in court, does that mitigate the whole issue of the time lines? Or if, say, someone is taken to court and they have an ability to drag this on for years - as you know, there's plenty of opportunity to have issues drag on in the courts - would that be covered? Or can they go by the six-year limit by going on forever in court, as they might if you happen to have caught one of the big fish with a lot of fraud involved in a particular issue?
Mr. Leduc: You're right. If we only had, say, three years and they dragged it out quite a long time, then we couldn't count a new one, or... The six years will allow us, for those people who go to court, to impose a warning over a longer period.
Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Shall new Clause 41.1 carry?
Amendment agreed to on division
On Clause 42 - Benefits not assignable
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend Bill C-12 by striking out the heading immediately before Clause 42 on page 37 and substituting the following:
- ``Non-assignment of Benefits and Liability to Return Benefits and Pay Penalties''
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 42 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 43 - Liability for overpayments
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Give us the time to read it.
[English]
The Chairman: Am I going too quickly for you, Madame Lalonde?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: That's impossible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You have to be careful at my age, you know.
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, yes.
Mr. Nault: I'm sorry, but I'm not touching these comments.
The Chairman: Better try a different tactic. He's not going for it.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to on division
On Clause 45 - Return of benefits by claimant
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend Clause 45 of C-12 by striking out lines 17 to 19 on page 38 and substituting the following:
- ``employer, a trustee in bankruptcy or any other person subsequently becomes liable to pay
earnings, including damages for wrongful dismissal or proceeds realized from the property of a
bankrupt, to the claim-''
The Chairman: Explanation, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: It's consequential to the change to Clause 46, Mr. Chairman. It relates to this:
- ``If a claimant receives benefits for a period and, under a labour arbitration award or court
judgment, or for any other reason, an employer, a trustee in bankruptcy or any other person
becomes liable to pay earnings, including damages for wrongful dismissal or proceeds realized
from the property of a bankrupt, to the claimant for the same period and pays the earnings, the
claimant shall pay to the Receiver General as repayment of an overpayment of benefits an
amount equal to the benefits that would not have been paid if the earnings had been paid or
payable at the time the benefits were paid.''
The Chairman: I thought it was pretty clear.
Mr. Nault: I read it about fourteen times, and I still wonder.
.1845
The Chairman: Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No, but an explanation would certainly be welcome.
[English]
The Chairman: You would like an explanation after that? Okay.
Ms Smith: This Clause and the subsequent one are simply clarifying that in circumstances where funds due to the UI account have been held up in circumstances of a bankruptcy, when that bankruptcy is in fact finalized and the funds are being released from the trust account, the trust account has to indeed recognize the UI program's right as the first payee.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 45 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 46 - Return of benefits by employer or other person
The Chairman: We have some amendments. I believe they're from Mr. Nault. Is that right?
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Clause 46 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 28 to 30 on page 38 and substituting the following:
- ``employer, a trustee in bankruptcy or any other person become liable to pay earnings,
including damages for wrongful dismissal or proceeds realized from the property of a bankrupt,
to a claimant for a period and has''
That sounds familiar.
The Chairman: Explanation, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I'll leave it to the officials. My sense is that it is the same as the last explanation.
The Chairman: Officials.
Mr. McFee: He's right.
Mr. Nault: For the first time this week.
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Any further amendments, Mr. Nault?
Mr. Nault: No, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I'm looking for the spot. On page 38, line 29 and 30, it talks about wrongful dismissal.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 46 carry?
Are you reading out loud, Madame Lalonde?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I'm just trying to understand what this says.
[English]
The Chairman: You're asking me to interrupt the -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I hoped you would realize that I was trying to put all the pieces together in order to have a full understanding of the bill. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: You've always read out loud, I gather.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Okay. On division.
[English]
Clause 46 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: We'll go to the new Clause.
Mr. Nault: That would be new Clause 46.1, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding, immediately after line 10 on page 39, the following:
````Liability of directors to pay penalties''
46.1 (1) If a penalty is imposed on a corporation under section 38 or 39 for an act or omission, the directors of the corporation at the time of the act or omission are subject to subsections (2) to (7), jointly and severally liable, together with the corporation, to pay the amount of the penalty.
``Limitations on liability''
(2) A director is not liable unless
(a) a certificate for the amount of the corporation's liability for the penalty has been registered in the Federal Court under section 126 and execution for that amount has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part;
(b) the corporation has commenced liquidation or dissolution proceedings or has been dissolved and a claim for the amount of its liability has been proved within six months after the date of commencement of the proceedings or the date of the dissolution, whichever is earlier; or
(c) the corporation has made an assignment or a receiving order has been made against it under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a claim for the amount of its liability has been proved within six months after the date of the assignment or receiving order.
``Defence of due diligence''
(3) A director is not liable if the director exercises the degree of care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances to prevent the act or omission for which the penalty is imposed.
``Limitation period''
(4) No action or proceedings to recover any amount payable by a director shall be commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the act or omission for which the penalty imposed.
``Amount recoverable''
(5) If execution referred to in paragraph (2)(a) has issued, the amount recoverable from a director is the amount remaining unsatisfied after execution.
``Preference''
(6) If a director pays an amount in respect of a corporation's liability that is proved in liquidation, dissoluton or bankruptcy proceedings,
(a) the director is entitled to any preference that Her Majesty in right of Canada would have been entitled to if that amount had not been paid; and
(b) if a certificate that relates to that amount has been registered, the director is entitled to an assignment of the certificate to the extent of the director's payment and the Commission shall make the assignment.
``Contribution from other directors''
(7) A director who has satisfied a claim under this section is entitled to contribution from other directors who are liable for the claim.''
.1850
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Could you start over again, please? I didn't hear the beginning.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, can you read it again?
Okay, who's going to explain this one?
Mr. Nault: If the fraud occurred during the term of a director and the company has been unable to pay the penalty, corporate directors should be held accountable for payment of the penalty. It's obvious that many corporations are paper corporations that really don't have any money and we're not able to collect the penalties from the corporation itself. This makes individual directors liable for the first time.
The Chairman: One question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I don't really understand what this business of ``privilège'' or preference is. I'm not raising a question of privilege, I'm simply saying there is a part here entitled ``Preference''.
[English]
The Chairman: I understood that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I was afraid Mr. Nault would get mad. He should be careful at his age.
[English]
The Chairman: No, it's beyond that stage, Madame Lalonde.
We have to be nice, now. Carry on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I just want to be given an explanation of the title used here. In French, it is ``Privilège'', but in English it is ``Preference''.
[English]
The Chairman: ``Preference''.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.
Mr. Nault: Which line is it on?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I simply want to find out what it means.
[English]
Proposed subsection (6). What is the true sense of this? I don't understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Leduc: It is the equivalent of a subrogation; in other words, if a director pays the penalty, then the Commission or the department can provide a certificate and the employee can then sue the corporation. All this means is that he replaces the Commission or the department. Once the director has paid the Commission, he can sue the corporation to recover that amount.
[English]
Mr. Regan: With workers' compensation, if a company goes bankrupt, those are paid first to the government, before the creditors are paid. They're a preferred creditor compared to the other creditors. That's a preference.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Is that what it means?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Crête: So, the term ``corporation'' will apply to every kind of non-profit organization that could be an employer. It could mean actual corporations, but it could also mean any type of incorporated body.
Mr. Leduc: All those that fall in the category of ``corporation'', as defined here.
Mrs. Lalonde: Where is it defined?
Mr. Crête: It isn't. Is it defined here?
Mr. Leduc: It isn't. This is the same expression used in the Income Tax Act. The term refers to organizations that are incorporated.
Mr. Crête: In French, however, the term ``société'' has a very specific meaning.
Mr. Leduc: Yes, I realize that. We are not talking about a ``société'' within the meaning of the Civil Code.
.1855
Mrs. Lalonde: Shouldn't you have included a definition here?
Mr. Leduc: This kind of Clause can be found in a number of federal statutes and pretty well the same terminology is used everywhere. These are corporations -
Mrs. Lalonde: In other words, you need to be a lawyer to make sense of this bill.
Mr. Crête: What you're saying is the word ``société'' is meant to be a translation of the English term ``corporation''.
[English]
The Chairman: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Unless that is an anglicism.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, but it's true.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: In any case, a definition could easily have been provided.
[English]
The Chairman: The question is on the new Clause 46.1.
Amendment agreed to on division
On Clause 47 - Debts to Crown
The Chairman: I believe there is an amendment. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that Clause 47 in Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 39 and substituting the following:
- ``38, 39, 43, 45, 46, 46.1 are debts due to Her''
The Chairman: Okay, that's pretty clear.
Mr. Nault: We want to get our money, in other words.
The Chairman: I don't think that requires any further explanation or debate.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, on division, and I'll tell you why. The government is in a big hurry to get its money back, but the workers whose leave and salaries disappear when the bankruptcy occurs do not enjoy the same privilege.
[English]
Clause 47 as amended agreed to on division
Mr. Easter: That's based on mistaken assumptions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nault: Yes, it is, and she'll retract that when we get further down the way.
Clause 48 agreed to on division
On Clause 49 - Proof required
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Let me just figure out where we are.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, is there any discussion on Clause 49? Madame Lalonde doesn't have her hand up, so we will proceed.
Clause 49 agreed to on division
On Clause 50 - Entitlement to benefits
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 50?
Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: On division.
When the employer doesn't provide a record of employment, for instance, does that mean the claimant cannot receive benefits?
Mr. Leduc: No. There are provisions in the regulations. If I understood your question, you're talking about a case where an employer neglects to provide a record of employment? No, there are provisions in the regulations.
Mrs. Lalonde: But only in the regulations.
Mr. McFee: Yes, it's been in the regulations for quite some time now. If no record of employment has been provided, for instance, an individual has the right to estimate the amount he or she has earned.
[English]
Clauses 50 to 52 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 53 - Notification
The Chairman: Okay, I'll just start my...did you say one minute? Go ahead, Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I just have a question regarding electronic transmission of documents:
``53. If the Commission is required to notify a person of a decision under this Part, it may have that person notified in such manner as it considers adequate.''
From what I understand, this is new, right? According to your explanation, this means that a person could be notified of a decision by electronic means.
Mr. McFee: Yes, that's correct.
.1900
Mrs. Lalonde: I have nothing against progress. However, I do think it's important that the person who is supposed to be notified of a decision have some proof. Otherwise, if a notice is issued and there are delays... Do you see what I mean?
I suppose you're going to say that there will be regulations to deal with this.
I think it's important to uphold citizens' rights, whether we're talking about corporations or individuals. Providing for notification of a decision to be given in electronic form should include allowing a citizen - corporate or otherwise - to defend himself, if necessary, and thus to prove that he was notified on the date he is supposed to have received the notification. If you send that notice over the Internet -
Mr. McFee: Yes, you're right. However, in a way, this relates to two Clauses we will be coming to in a little while - Clauses 134 and following - which discuss permission to send documents in electronic form.
Mrs. Lalonde: Don't you think it would be appropriate to refer to that here, if there are specific conditions that must be met? Otherwise, the Commission will be free to do whatever it wants. I must admit I don't know the entire bill by heart. Maybe you do, but I don't - at least, not yet.
Mr. McFee: Neither do I. But this is also connected to the definitions section we will be coming back to later. There there is a definition of ``documents''. In order to have a thorough understanding, all these Clauses must be read in tandem. When we get there, you'll see what I mean.
Mrs. Lalonde: But the word ``documents'', is not mentioned here. It says: ``If the Commission is required to notify a person of a decision [...] it may have that person notified in such manner as it considers adequate''. It seems to me you could have added the word ``documents''.
Mr. McFee: This simply means that the Commission can notify people of a decision either in writing or by electronic means.
Mrs. Lalonde: We'll have to give this a little more thought. However, it's clear to me that the protection afforded citizens through this Clause simply isn't adequate. We're not necessarily questioning the Commission's willingness to provide proper notification, but it is important that individual citizens be given the assurance that their rights will be protected. If notification is to be given by electronic means, we have to ensure that it is done properly. And that applies to everybody.I think on both sides of the table, we have an interest in seeing that this is done appropriately, rather than waiting for there to be major problems and then having to fix them.
I'll have another look at this when we come to Clause 134 and the definition of ``documents''.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, you were talking about electronic documents, but that isn't something new. I find it difficult because Madame Lalonde is almost suggesting that. As you know, there's direct deposit now for cheques and all sorts of things in the government. That's electronic documentation. You can send a person's cheque right into his or her bank account now without any process.
I think the intent of the commission is to eventually allow people, if they're on UI, to punch their dates into the machine instead of having to send cards in the mail. Eventually we'll be doing that on a regular basis and it will save the individual who is on UI a lot of trouble.
I'm sure all members here have run into the problem of having their mail torn up. It becomes frustrating around Christmas time with the backlog when people don't get their UI cheques. I've had hundreds of occasions over the last eight years when people didn't get their UI cheques because they came through the mail.
The intent of this, of course, is to become more modern and be able to send their cheques through electronic mail. There would be direct deposit and we wouldn't have to deal with our friends at Canada Post. That's one of the major complaints.
The other thing is that we won't have to send cards on a regular basis. I'm sure the members know this, but for the record, many people fill out their cards even when they're working and may not be able to collect for that week. They may pick up a week of work somewhere, so they fill out their cards, send them in and say they're not going to get cheques that week because they were working. You could do it all electronically and it would be a lot faster. I think that's the intent of this whole section.
.1905
Obviously there have to be guidelines, but the guidelines and the criteria are well known and respected in the federal government because we've been doing it in other departments for a number of years now.
I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary's point, but I would draw your attention to the fact that Clause 53 talks about notification:
``53. If the Commission is required to notify a person of a decision under this Part, it may have that person notified...''
I think it has to be clearly stated that that person has to have some way of proving that he's been notified. That's very important. If it's sent to me via electronic mail, I may not see it. I think you understand what I'm getting at here.
At the House of Commons, I object to the use of electronic mail for notices of meetings because it forces us to sit down in front of a machine and press a button, and if we forget to do that, we're in trouble! I prefer to get the green sheet by regular mail. At least we are sure to have that, and if we don't have it, then too bad. I'm just asking that this not be -
An hon. member:...the only form of notification.
Mrs. Lalonde:...the only priority.
[English]
Ms Smith: I just want to clarify that we'll be coming back to this in Clause 143, which sets out in quite some detail the areas in which the commission will be making regulations that would deal with those sorts of issues.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: So it will be in the regulations?
[English]
Clause 53 agreed to on division
On Clause 54 - Regulations
The Chairman: We have a series of amendments here.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, is it the wish of the committee that I read into the record all seven amendments relating to Clause 54, or would you like me to read one, give some sort of explanation and then go on? They're all very short amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Okay, one last time.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I move that the English version of Clause 54 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 43 and substituting the following:
- ``is to be considered to have worked or not worked a full work''
- ``tion 19 of earnings and allowances''
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 54 of Bill C-12 be amended by adding, immediately after line 20 on page 43, the following:
- ``(c.1) for determining the average number of weeks of regular benefits for the purposes of
paragraph 7.1(6)(b);''
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms Smith.
Ms Smith: You'll recall that Clause 7.1 is in respect to the entrance requirement provisions for claimants who have engaged in fraud.
We need some regulations that will enable us to calculate the value of that fraud in instances where a claimant has, for example, attempted to qualify for benefits with a false ROE and has never established a benefit period. We would need to calculate how much that would have been if the person had managed to perpetrate his or her fraud.
The Chairman: Thank you. That makes it much clearer.
.1910
Monsieur Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It seems clear, but I want to be sure. We're told it's harsher, but what was it before?
[English]
Ms Smith: It didn't exist before.
The Chairman: So it cannot be a relative statement.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's moved that Clause 54 of Bill C-12 be amended by adding immediately after line 25 on page 43 the following:
- ``(d.1) determining for the purposes of subsection 19(3) the period for which benefits were
claimed;''
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: And what is meant in French by the term ``adjonction''?
Mr. McFee: It means to add something.
Mr. Dubé: You have to understand I didn't get past third year university.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: That Clause 54 of Bill C-12 be amended by adding immediately after line 36 on page 43 the following:
- ``(g.1) for defining as a major contravention for the purposes of subsection 39(5) anything that
constitutes an act mentioned in subsection 39(1) or (3) and for setting or calculating the amount
or maximum amount of the penalty for the major contravention, up to a maximum of $25,000;''
Mr. Nault: It's a regulatory authority, Mr. Chairman, to enable the determination of major violations and to specify penalties.
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: This refers to a ``major contravention'', but I don't know whether we're talking about businesses or employees.
Mr. Leduc: This relates to businesses.
Mr. Dubé: Here it says a maximum penalty of $25,000. But if you're talking about a major corporation like the Royal Bank, that may have 3,000 or 4,000 employees, a $25,000 penalty will not have the same impact as it might in other cases.
Mr. Leduc: Your example was based on 3,000 or 4,000 employees, right? What this means is that the penalty would be $25,000 for each false record of employment. So, 3,000 or 4,000 times $25,000 adds up to a lot of money.
Mr. Dubé: Even for the Royal Bank. Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 54 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 24 and 25 on page 44 and substituting the following:
- ``penalties under section 38, 39 or 65.1 and amounts owing under sections 43, 45, 46, 46.1 or''
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Nault. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: You mentioned Clauses 38, 39 and 65. Could someone explain what Clause 38 covers?
.1915
Mr. Leduc: Clause 54, which we are amending here, provides for the deduction of overpayments. These are overpayments under Clause 38, which deals with employee penalties; under Clause 39, which deals with employer penalties; and under Clause 65.1, which deals with penalties under Part II that we will be discussing a little later on. There are also amounts owed under Clause 43, that relates to reconsideration of a benefit claim that establishes an overpayment; under Clauses 45 and 46, which we looked at earlier, regarding the trustee; and under Clause 46.1, which deals with directors' liability.
Mr. Dubé: Now I have another question for you. It is a well-known fact that with respect to wages - for example, in a case of bankruptcy - directors are considered to be liable since employees are affected. And in this case, the term ``directors'' refers to members of a board of directors and not someone in a managerial position. Therefore Board members are in fact liable.
Mr. Leduc: Is that in 46.1? I just want to make sure that it is limited to directors. Yes, that's right.
Mr. Dubé: I have a concern here. Would that also affect non-profit organizations that have employees?
I just want to make the following point. I think we should consider moving an amendment to this Clause because in the case of non-profit organizations, we're talking about directors who are actually volunteers and attend board meetings four times a year, say.
Mr. Leduc: Mr. Dubé, I just wanted to say that I can't answer your question because Clause 46.1 has already passed.
Mr. Dubé: I wasn't really asking you a question. I was really making a comment to my colleagues opposite.
If this also affects non-profit organizations, just imagine the kind of problems that could arise if directors were deemed to be liable for errors or fraud. They would be considered to be personally liable, similar to what happens with bankruptcies.
If some of them were ever to be convicted, I'm concerned that that could deal a heavy blow to volunteer work. Imagine what would happen if we decided that volunteer directors who perform their work with honesty and integrity are to be held liable; I'm sure there would be an immediate drop in the number of volunteers in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the record for Mr. Dubé, first of all, if you're caught defrauding the commission, you must have done it knowingly and willingly, and that has to be proven. If someone - a volunteer - mistakenly does something he won't be charged with defrauding the commission. Is that not the issue?
What we're talking about is for the first time making directors in corporations responsible for non-compliance with the act. There are many cases where people...and just recently in the press there were a couple of cases in the last few weeks where employers were known to have played around with the records of employment. That's what this is all about. What happens if that corporation has absolutely no money? Then the directors of course are liable for it.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Some non-profit organizations have very few employees and no organizational structure to speak of; they may have only one permanent staff member handling small projects.
The managing director of the organization may have committed fraud or been dishonest, but the board members, who only meet once a month at a three-hour meeting, may only realize later that for an entire year, someone was issuing false records of employment or something of that nature.
So the case goes to court and the person is unable to pay. The organization is considered to be liable. That kind of situation arises all the time and can arise in relation to any statute. Volunteers who sit on boards of directors and find themselves in such a predicament often conclude that they would have been better off not getting involved in volunteer work. That once happened to me.
.1920
Mr. Leduc: We can go back to 46.1, because the wording in this Clause is widely used. There is a very good defense available which is called the defense of due diligence. In the example you have cited of a small non-profit organization, a board member is expected to follow the affairs of the organization and to tell the managing director that he wants its business to be handled properly and in full compliance with the law. That would be an example of due diligence. That defence is available and is quite broad.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Can I take my colleagues back to new Clause 46.1? That is really the question the gentleman's asking. It states:
````Defence of due diligence''
(3) A director is not liable if the director exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances to prevent the act''
So we are being very careful to make sure that if it's a volunteer group, and there's a board, and they're doing their best... Quite frankly, we have no intention of going after those kinds of individuals. That's why the defence of due diligence, new Sub-Clause 46.1(3), is in the act.
Amendment agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that co-operation between the two sides seems to be improving. We are even getting help from Mr. Nault's assistant.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I didn't catch that, because our translators didn't catch it.
I'd like to thank the translators, Mr. Chairman. They've been up as long as we have. Of course, the filibuster of the opposition wore them out as much as it wore us out. That's probably why there are times when they wonder whether there is a way out of this.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: That was a compliment.
[English]
The Chairman: That wasn't the amendment, was it?
Mr. Nault: No, Mr. Chairman, that was as close as I could get to saying thank you to the translators for doing their best.
I move to amend Clause 54 of Bill C-12 by striking out lines 40 to 42 on page 45 and substituting the following:
- ``geographical units established or used by Statistics''
The Chairman: Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just a moment. Is it Clause 54 that deals with regulations? Okay, good.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I move to amend Clause 54 of Bill C-12 by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 46 and substituting the following:
``(z) for carrying out the purposes and provisions of section 14, including regulations
(i) respecting the circumstances under which, the criteria by which and the manner in which
(A) weeks are to be considered as weeks for which a claimant has insurable earnings during a rate calculation period, including the number of those weeks to be considered in that period, and
(B) amounts are to be considered as the insurable earnings for any week or number of weeks that period, and
(ii) for allocating insurable earnings to a rate calculation period, for example by including them in that period or excluding them from that period;''
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, an explanation, please.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I think I'll leave this with the officials.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
.1925
The Chairman: Officials, have you an explanation?
Ms Smith: This regulation-making authority is with respect to wanting to be able to use pay-period rules from employers for determining insurable earnings, rather than forcing things to a Sunday-to-Saturday pay period. So we need to have some rules that will allow us to make that transition ourselves.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 54 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to on division
On Clause 57 - Guidelines
Mr. Nault: There's an amendment to Clause 57. This is specifically for us people who believe in two official languages.
The amendment is that Clause 57 of Bill C-12 be amended by adding, immediately after line 3 on page 48, the following:
- ``(d.1) availability of assistance under the benefits and measures in either official language
where there is significant demand for that assistance in that language;''
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to make a comment on this.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I would like to be told what the criteria are for determining significant demand.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Let me make it very clear to Mr. Crête that when the commission is involved we already supply the services in both official languages. This has been recognized by the Commissioner of Official Languages, who has stressed the importance of recognizing those language rights.
This is intended to be when we enter into an agreement with a province.
As we know - and Mr. Crête and Mr. Dubé should be very familiar with this - part II deals with the recognition that we will be entering into agreements with provinces, not only Quebec but other provinces across the nation. It's our intention to make sure that in other provinces, mainly the English-speaking ones, there will be services in French.
The intent of that is, then, that we will negotiate with the provinces what is assumed to be significant demand. This is something we've always done in the past on a number of issues. For example, in Ontario, even though there's not official demand for a French clerk in a liquor store, there's now a line that you can use to talk in French to someone as a service in the province of Ontario. We've tried to do that in order to make both official languages as accessible as possible, even where there isn't demand in the sense of numbers.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I've always felt that use of the expression ``where there is significant demand'' has given rise to a great many different interpretations; there are a lot of francophone communities in Canada that are fighting to prove that they have the required minimum, but in the case of benefits relating to training programs, it's even more complex, because there you're often talking about groups. You have to find 15 people who speak French, and that obviously creates significant problems. Will a regulation be introduced to clarify this, since it currently gives rise to a variety of interpretations?
There have been cases in both Ontario and New Brunswick of groups wanting to be given courses in French. If you set up a course for forestry workers, the language of instruction is not necessarily relevant to the work that is going to be performed. But in order for the course to be given in that language, you need 15 people. There are certain characteristics.
.1930
[English]
Mr. Nault: Let me see if I can put it another way. Under part II we will be negotiating with Quebec on a number of issues. This also relates to the English language in the province of Quebec. If Mr. Crête and the Bloc would like to give us their analysis of what regulations they would like us to put in place for the English language in Quebec, we would certainly be willing to do that. I doubt very much that's what he would want.
The intent of this is to negotiate with the provinces, and in the province of Quebec the English language is the other way around. Is he suggesting that in areas where there is no significant demand for the English language we force the Quebec government to supply a very expensive service of some kind because we've dictated it through regulations here? I doubt very much that would be the intent of, or be acceptable to, the Quebec government. That's why it's put the way it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The parliamentary secretary may have his doubts, but the fact is we have always offered to sign reciprocity agreements with any province of Canada. However, no province in Canada - other than perhaps New Brunswick - can compete with us in that respect. In every one of the other provinces, this kind of offer has been made by the Premier of Quebec. We have a bilingual health services system. We also have a completely bilingual education system, from kindergarten up to university. In Quebec, you can receive your entire education in English.
[English]
The Chairman: We're going into all sorts of areas -
Mr. Nault: The only thing I was asking was this. Was Mr. Crête suggesting we should have certain regulations the federal government would apply to the Quebec government as to what we think is acceptable as it relates to the two official languages in agreements we're going to have under part II? If that's what he's saying -
Mr. Crête: No.
Mr. Nault: Then we're saying we accept the fact that the Quebec government has a right to decide what the significant demand is, and you're saying they're doing a good job, and we have no argument with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The parliamentary secretary missed the point of my comment. The focus of my intervention was the difficulty of using an expression like ``where there is significant demand''. That definition leads to a lot of problems, not because of a lack of co-operation, but simply because there are practical problems involved in applying that kind of criterion, which inevitably leads to frustration. I think it might be a good idea to clarify it, because otherwise we are likely to face major problems.
Let's deal with the amendment now, and after that I would like to make another comment on the Clause itself.
[English]
The Chairman: First of all, let me tell you Mr. Ian Green is the ADM from the human resources investment branch.
We welcome you to Clause-by-Clause.
Mr. Ian C. Green (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that you'll note the legions who preceded us have been replaced with three people, so we're feeling a little overwhelmed down here. That guarantees I won't get any more help from my colleagues.
As Mr. Nault was saying on this, the Official Languages Act is in fact the framework within which this is determined. Mr. Nault quite rightly pointed out that the Commissioner of Official Languages has made it very clear in stressing the importance of recognizing language rights when the commission enters into agreements with provinces.
This is an extension of our current administrative arrangements. It's not a major change in those. I'd be happy to provide the hon. member with an outline of our guidelines in this area so he could see how we operate, if that would help.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I want to thank Mr. Green for his answer. He says this Clause refers us back to the Official Languages Act, but it might be simpler to include a definition here for the sake of clarity.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall Clause 57 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, Mr. Chairman. I have another comment to make on this Clause before we can consider it to have been passed.
.1935
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, but are you bringing in an amendment or anything?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, not at this time. I do have a relevant comment, though. In Clause 57, guidelines are provided for the establishment of employment benefits and support measures. I would draw your attention to paragraph (d) which says:
``(d) flexibility to allow significant decisions about implementation to be made at the local level;''
In the past, before the legislative reform initiative got underway, there was already quite a bit of decentralization in terms of employment centres being able to make decisions about development programs. I would like to see a return to that kind of decentralization in the future, because right now, for the Transitional Jobs Fund, all projects have to go through the minister.
He simply can't keep up. In some areas, people are presenting projects for the creation of one, five, eight or ten jobs, but in other cases, we're talking about significant numbers. I see this as an important guideline. I think it's important that in the short term, the Transitional Jobs Fund be decentralized as much as possible so that regional branches and even local employment centres can make decisions quickly on the applications coming in.
A lot of major projects will be coming on stream in the next few months as a result of the reforms. I think it's important that regions with primarily seasonal employment benefit from diversification measures and, since proposals can be brought forward starting in the fall, that we put a mechanism in place as quickly as possible to allow decisions to be made at the grassroots level, and thus counteract to a certain extent the negative impact of decreased benefits.
I think there is a lot we can do in this area. I would like to ask Mr. Green whether he feels that is a policy issue. Do you think it will be possible to implement and decentralize the Transitional Jobs Fund within the next few months?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, I -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is this something you're experiencing as well?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Is that with some of the programs not fitting the criteria of the local area?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No. I'm saying that as far as the Transitional Jobs Fund is concerned, there are a great many proposals coming forward, and yet the current decision-making process is such that the minister has to sign for even the most minor projects - a system that did not turn out to be very effective under the Job Development Program.
Previously, each employment centre could make its own decisions. In the future, will it be possible to decentralize the Transitional Jobs Fund?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, it depends on the amount of money he's talking about. My understanding is that there is now a significant amount of decision-making at the local level, depending on the amount of dollars were talking about in the job creation program. If someone comes along at the local level and says they want to spend $10 million on a particular job creation program, I think it would be very difficult not to have some sort of accountability of the politicians themselves. That's why it ends up at the minister's level. If it's a program that deals with it at the community level, within reason, that flexibility is there now.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Well, I've delivered my message, and I don't expect to be given a definite answer today. I simply wanted to be sure the message would be passed on to the minister.
[English]
The Chairman: And I think that's what your intervention was about. You wanted to send a message, and I think you did.
Clause 57 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 58 - Definition of ``insured participant''
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
.1940
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to Clause 58. It's in the small package.
I move that Clause 58 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out line 30 on page 48 and substituting the following:
``58. (1) In this Part, ``insured participant''''
and (b) by adding immediately after line 9 on page 49 the following:
````Interpretation''
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), ``benefit period'' includes a benefit period established under the Unemployment Insurance Act and ``special benefits'' includes benefits under sections 18 and 20 of that Act.''
The Chairman: Explanation, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, this provision clarifies that past benefits periods under the Unemployment Insurance Act will be treated as past benefits periods under the EI Act when determining the eligibility for part II benefits.
The Chairman: Excuse me. If I can just get this on the record, I was to say that Clause 57 was carried as amended. That's just in case I didn't say anything.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We're dealing with definitions here. Why are these definitions included here?Why do they appear here? For example, why wasn't the term ``insured participant'' defined under Clause 2?
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. Dixon: The definition of ``insured participant'' wasn't included in Clause 2 in that its application is really confined to this particular part. It was therefore convenient to confine the definition to this part.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just one brief comment.
Basically, an ``insured participant'' is defined as being someone who received benefits within the past 36 or 60 months and who meets the conditions laid out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).
I would like someone to clarify sub-paragraph (iii) for me. To me this means that for someone seeking to re-enter the labour force, the previous 60-month period would apply.
Is that what it means? I'm having trouble with this one. What is the rationale for paragraph (a) in that case?
An hon. member: That was a yes and a yes.
Mr. Crête: Was the question clear?
An hon. member: Not really.
Mr. Crête: Clause 58 refers to two ways of being considered an insured participant.
Paragraph (a) refers to a person for whom ``a benefit period is established or whose benefit period had ended within the previous 36 months''. In other words, you can go back 36 months.
Paragraph (b) sets out three different criteria. The first two seemed pretty simple, but the third one refers to a person ``seeking to re-enter the labour force''. In that case, you can go back 60 months.
What is the difference between paragraph (a), that talks about someone having received benefits within the previous 36 months, and sub-paragraph (b) (iii), which talks about someone seeking to re-enter the labour force?
Mr. Kerr: Sub-paragraph (a) is intended to cover unemployed workers, whether they are current or former claimants.
Sub-paragraph (b) is intended to cover women or parents who re-enter the labour force after being absent from it for a certain period to care for their children.
This is a measure that will benefit women and parents.
Mr. Crête: Yes, but in sub-paragraph (b) (iii), there is no mention of parents; it refers to a person who, over the last 60 months, has been seeking to re-enter the labour force. I get the impression that (b) (iii) includes (a). Am I right?
.1945
[English]
Mr. Dixon: Well, (b) is separate from (a) and elements (i), (ii), and (iii) are all three conditions that are to be met for the application of (b). So you have to have this in paid special benefits.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All three conditions must be met.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Hey, the light came on. Did you hear the bell ring?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm sure the other members were just too shy to speak up and explain, but that they understood exactly what it meant.
[English]
The Chairman: When people don't understand things they should ask questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: How did you decide on a 36-month period? Did you assess the percentages of people affected, as opposed to those who will be left out? Do you think this will apply to 80 per cent, 60 per cent or 40 per cent of people who have already collected unemployment insurance? Do we know what kind of numbers we're dealing with in order to be able to say that a 36-month period, as opposed to a 48-month period, is adequate under the circumstances?
Mr. Kerr: The 36-month rule reflects a policy decision that is intended to cover as broad a spectrum as possible of unemployed workers who use the insurance program. We estimate that this will allow us to cover up to 85 per cent of current users of our programs, including 45 per cent of eligible welfare recipients.
Mr. Crête: I would like to move an amendment to replace the number 36 by the number 48 in paragraph 58(a).
With respect to employment programs, it would be a good idea to find a way to compensate for the fact that the provinces and the federal government share jurisdiction for unemployment insurance and welfare. One of the best ways of reducing the negative impact of that shared jurisdiction is to allow more former unemployed persons to take part in these programs, because in any case, they will eventually come into the UI program when they find a job. Already, they represent a significant cost for the federal government in the form of equalization payments. Also, this would mean we could include people who have been in the system for a long time and who could be costing the government a lot of money. I think we would be meeting an important social and economic objective by making it a 48-month period.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that your comment?
Mr. Crête: Oui.
The Chairman: Since he has introduced a subamendment, the subamendment, the amendment, and the Clause will stand.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Sorry, it's an amendment.
.1950
Now we have two amendments, and they both have to stand.
Mr. Crête: Yes.
Subamendments allowed to stand
Clause 58 allowed to stand
The Chairman: So there you go. That's it. That's the end of the story.
On Clause 59 - Employment benefits for insured participants
The Chairman: Now we'll move to Clause 59. Seeing no discussion -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just a moment. This is the Clause that introduces the five programs that will be replacing the previous set of programs. Under this Clause, paragraph (c) talks about the timeframes available to self-employed workers under the Self-Employment Assistance Program.
I would like to know whether it would be possible to extend the Self-Employment Assistance Program to industries that are part of the new economy. In my own riding, I've had cases of individuals wanting to start a business in the new technology sector or to develop new products. They would have been eligible for assistance under the Self-Employment Assistance Program had the product they were developing been available within a short period of time.
Initially, this program was developed more for service industry products or the kinds of things small traditional businesses tend to deal in. But now we have new types of products coming on to the market.
I have written to Messrs. Manley and Axworthy and another minister as well to ask them to consider extending that program to new technology firms. Is this something the department might be prepared to consider? Could that option be entertained under this Clause?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: My colleagues can help me out on the specifics. Just in starting, I should point out that Clause 59 enables the commission to establish employment benefits, which includes those that are listed here. So to clarify the point about the five areas, it is not limited to those that are listed here by way of example.
The self-employment program, which is listed here, is the program that provides income support, technical support, and coaching to individuals. We envisage it having a wide application across a wide range of possible entrepreneurial or business opportunities. It could certainly include the kind of sector the member is talking about.
.1955
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have another comment to make.
The Chairman: Another?
Mr. Crête: It says here:
``59. The Commission may establish employment benefits to enable insured participants to obtain employment, including benefits to...''
Would this be the right spot to add a paragraph (f) where we could talk about creating jobs for workers laid off as a result of new technologies being introduced?
Let's just use the example of forestry workers. Supposing the use of an automatic chainsaw led to the loss of twenty jobs, say. Could this Clause be used to develop a re-entry program so that these people could be put back to work?
[English]
Mr. Green: On the issue of displaced workers, any number of the benefits that are laid out here could be used to help displaced workers. It's your choice to make the amendment, but I'm not sure why you'd want to do it, given that any number of these tools could be used as interventions to help displaced workers. I'm not sure why you'd want to limit yourself to one as opposed to any number of them, many of which are designed with displaced workers in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The difference is that the other measures are intended to enhance employability - other than the Self-Employment Assistance Program that actually creates jobs. But in the other cases, we're really talking more about employment assistance - in other words, encouraging employers to hire them, and thus to do a little promotion. This Clause talks about benefits to:
``(b) encourage them to accept employment by offering incentives such as temporary earnings supplements;''
We are not talking about jobs per se; the government is not setting itself up as a potential employer here.
[English]
Mr. Green: No. But I would point out that (d) talks about directly providing people with employment opportunities through which they can gain work experience and improve their long-term employment prospects, which I think deals with the point you're trying to make about the kind of intervention that would be appropriate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: You're very welcome.
Clause 59 agreed to on division
On Clause 60 - National employment service
[Translation]
Mr. Regan: I move that Clause 60 of the French version of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 26 and 27, page 50, and substituting the following:
- ``ployés ou d'employeurs et les collectivités à développer et à mettre''
The Chairman: Is it pretty clear to everybody?
Mr. Crête: I want to have the time to read it properly. Couldn't we say ``les employés et les employeurs et les collectivités'', instead of ``organismes communautaires''?
Why not simply add ``et les collectivités'' next to ``organismes communautaires''? I'm surprised that you're suggesting this change, because they really aren't the same. We could have them side by side.
Why don't we simply say: ``peut mettre sur pied des mesures de soutien ayant pour but d'aider et de soutenir les employeurs, les associations d'employés et d'employeurs, les collectivités et les organismes communautaires''? You are removing ``organismes communautaires'' as potential beneficiaries of support measures.