HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

• 1824

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let's begin clause-by-clause consideration. I hope you work with me. Like many of you, it's the first time I've done this, but I'll certainly do what I can.

An hon. member: That's all we can ask.

The Chair: That's right, and it's a lot more than it would be if it were you.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

The Chair: I'll do it slowly. Members, if you have any amendments, we have amendments before us. If you have amendments, get them in.

Paul Crête, on clause 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman. For form's sake, I would like you to deem that the clauses have been carried on division...

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. I will say—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: ...unless you are told that there is unanimity. That way, we won't have to say it every time.

• 1825

[English]

The Chair: So I will say carried on division, unless advised otherwise. I would be glad to do that. I would return, then, to clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): When there are amendments, are you going to mention that there was... [Editor's note: inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: Yes, where, as in the case of the NDP, I have received them, Yvon. I will mention that we have NDP amendments. But if I have not received them, I cannot do that. But members are free to submit amendments as we proceed. It's not for me to know where they are.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, but you've got mine.

The Chair: I've got yours, Yvon, and when we get to them, for example, under clause 4, we will get your amendments, okay?

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

The Chair: We have NDP amendments, and in our numbering system you can see it's NDP-1. Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment suggests four rather than five years, as provided for in Bill C-2. I would have liked to have gone even further. For an individual who has already worked and then been unemployed, I think that going back to 910 hours would be punitive. We may discuss the 910 hours later on, but I think that the government has brought forward a good clause and I want to change it so that it reads five years instead of four. I think that that would really be a reasonable period.

[English]

The Chair: You've heard the amendment; you have it before you. The amendment is admissible.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would think that this implies a financial commitment on the part of the government. If such, I'm not certain if it is admissible.

The Chair: Okay. Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: To answer Ms. Longfield, I would say that some amendments may have a financial impact. All that means is that the bill, ultimately, will require Royal Assent. That doesn't prevent us from adopting the amendments. It just means that Royal Assent will be required at the end.

[English]

The Chair: The change is from one year in the last five to one year in the last four plus whatever it is. The ruling was made that it's admissible because the financial change is so small as to be negligible. That is the explanation that I have received. Okay? In other words, it sort of cancels out, Judi, so it doesn't involve the additional spending of money.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Well, what is so small that it's negligible?

The Chair: The difference between the qualification period described here and the qualification period that was in the bill, in the act.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, I don't mean to be difficult, but is it $2 per claimant and then multiplied by 50,000 claimants or 200,000 claimants, or a million claimants? I want to know how much is negligible.

The Chair: Let me try, if I can. Again, I'm advised that it's not clear that it would affect the number of claimants. Okay? So again, I can only give you the argument. The staff have looked at it.

Yvon Godin.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): I was attempting to get on first, Mr. Chairman, if possible, but I know this is in defence of the position.

The Chair: Go ahead.

• 1830

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, that is the prerogative of the committee. We agree in a private member's bill that we can't force, if you wish, the government to spend money, but in this process of examining a bill, the government, if they do not agree, can simply vote against it. So I think this would be consistent with every committee I've ever been on, that those in government can resist it if they so choose.

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I would be disappointed. If we say that we are now going start adding up the $2 and $3, it's really minimal. That means that what I've done here, in the Committee, has been a waste of time. The past two or three weeks that I have spent here have been a waste of time, not only because of this clause, but because of all of the other clauses that will be affected. At one point, this is going to have to cost a few dollars. It doesn't make sense.

Finally, if we are here just to cross our t's and dot our I's, then it's not worth the effort. We have well paid experts in the country to do this type of work. We are here to make recommendations. As a committee, if we want to work together and come up with something, we have to have some flexibility somewhere along the line. I would be very disappointed should that occur, at least from the technical side. It's not much; rather than require 910 hours to qualify for employment insurance, we could require that a woman use a four-year period rather than a five-year period.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon. Again, I've made my ruling, and you've heard it, but....

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

The Chair: What was the amendment intended to do, then?

Mr. Yvon Godin: The reason of this amendment is to not punish the people who go on parental leave.

I feel that when people go on parental leave, and not only under employment insurance.... The federal government right now, for the public sector, gives five years of leave of absence. Five years of leave of absence—that's what they give. Then why don't we do what the federal government does in their own collective agreement, which is not four years, it's five years? Any federal people who work for the federal government have a five-year leave of absence for when they have children.

The Chair: Thank you.

Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although I respect the NDP member, I am very surprised that he has presented an amendment when he knows that money is involved and yet does not provide us with figures. I do not see how I could vote for an amendment when I have absolutely no idea how much this is going to cost us and how much it's going to cost Canadian taxpayers. I appreciate that we have just been told in very informal terms that this wouldn't cost very much money, but not very much money, at the national level, well, I don't know what that means. I am sorry.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. What I'm going to do—

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Let's vote.

[English]

The Chair: I know. Raymonde, I was going to do that. I've made my ruling. I'm going to call a vote on amendment NDP-1.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Can we proceed to amendment NDP-2, please? By the way, I should rule now.... No, he should speak to it.

Do you want to speak to it at all?

Mr. Yvon Godin: It looks like you're ready to rule now.

The Chair: I am, yes. I will, then. By the way—

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I mean—

The Chair: Is it simpler for you for me to do it?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, no. It's very simple for me to explain why I've done it.

[Translation]

It's to get rid of the denominator. I feel that the denominator is punitive, and when we are told that this is going to cost the government money, I would like to remind you, once again, that this does not cost the government any money because this fund belongs to Canadian workers and companies and not to the government, to be used to eliminate the national deficit and to balance the budget on the backs of workers. I think that the government argument used earlier, whereby this would cost the government money, is wrong. It does not cost the government one cent. This money belongs to Canada's workers and companies.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to rule this one is inadmissible because it amends a section of the parent act that is not specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the topics that we could study over the next few weeks.

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely.

Okay? Can we proceed to amendment NDP-3?

By the way, my ruling will be the same, but I don't want to prevent you from presenting your amendments. That's really what...as long as you're quick.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm always quick.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, once again, this has an impact on training. Once again, it is punitive. The changes made to employment insurance in 1996 were designed to prevent people from abusing the system. At any rate, that is what was said.

• 1835

I do not see how a person can abuse the system when it's used for training. Rather, this will encourage people to take training in order to keep their job. This is to remove the two-week period when people attend a community college and do that type of thing.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, would you accept referral? You have indicated through the notice of motion that there's going to be a process. Would you accept referral motions to that process, as opposed to just defeating them at this point?

The Chair: Can I hear Paul Crête first? Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion to my colleague from the NDP and to the entire committee.

In the spirit of the resolution that we adopted at the start, when the chairman deems that an amendment is inadmissible within the context of Bill C-2, he should say so immediately, as soon as the amendment is tabled. If the member from the NDP disagrees, he could say so, but if he does agree, the amendment will be defeated immediately because it is inadmissible within the context of Bill C-2. Otherwise, Yvon, we will be having a useless debate on every clause because many amendments will be ruled out of order. If the chairman deems that a clause is inadmissible, it is better that he say so right at the start.

If you want to challenge that, you could do so. We will already have the chairman's opinion, which will save us from having to spend too much time on amendments that are inadmissible. I too, could have had a list like that. My list is ready, but I did not table it because I was waiting to see what we would come up with as a resolution. I think that if we were to do it this way, we would be in keeping with the spirit of the resolution.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Can I go back to this? Alan, my thought is that in the way we're proceeding we've established this frame of reference, which is that we're going to revisit these things. And I think if they are defeated, for example, members might want to say that they were going to revisit them, but many of these things you know are going to be in the material that we revisit anyway. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Absolutely. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You told me to go ahead.

The Chair: Yes.

So amendment three is inadmissible for the same reason. Amendment four, the same reason.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Same reason.

The Chair: Inadmissible—same reason.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am just going on record that I'm putting it in for the same reason.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It should not be there.

The Chair: Absolutely. I do agree.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like some clarification with respect to clause 5, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I did not have NDP-5 on my list, Yvon.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: NDP-5?

The Chair: I do not have an NDP-5 on my list, Yvon. I think I must have an old list. Just give me a minute.

I now have number five. Thank you very much. I also have number six, and I'm going to use this list.

It's inadmissible for the same reason.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's what?

The Chair: It's inadmissible for the same reason.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Is this NDP-5, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: NDP-5. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, and I'll go to NDP-6 in a moment.

Okay, NDP-5 is inadmissible. Pass on to NDP-6.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): No, no.

The Chair: I'm sorry, what are we doing?

Mr. Yvon Godin: It was in clause 6, NDP-6.

• 1840

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to call clauses 4 and 5.

(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

The Chair: Clause 6, NDP amendment number six. It's out of order for the same reason.

Mr. Yvon Godin: For which reason?

The Chair: It is inadmissible because it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the royal recommendation.

What's this one? Liberal amendment number one. Okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment I would like to table pertains to undeclared earnings.

[English]

The Chair: This is Georges Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: As you know, and as many witnesses who appeared before us have said, this is clearly a very punitive clause. It has a punitive effect on earnings, for those weeks where claimants receive no benefits and earn extra money and even for those weeks where claimants receive benefits. An average of the weeks was calculated, taking several weeks into account and not just the week the claimant worked. Consequently, this clause seems punitive to me.

Given that there is no financial impact associated with this measure, I think it is a major irritant. This pertains to subsection 19(3) of the Employment Insurance Act. This would be a very beneficial amendment for employment insurance claimants and would have no financial impact on the system per say.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco and Paul Crête.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As regards my colleague's amendment, I would really like to have a better understanding of just how it would work. I would like to have further clarification from him, but perhaps we could wait for other individuals to ask their questions so as to let Mr. Farrah answer all questions at once.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I would also suggest, if we want to find out more about how this would work out in terms of the legislation, that we turn to the departmental officials in attendance. They would certainly be able to help us answer, tell us, should we adopt the amendment, how long it would take to implement such a measure in the system and start having a really meaningful impact on claimants.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Before we discuss the merits of the issue, I would like to make a clarification to the Chair.

The way I read this amendment, it is like the one presented by the NDP earlier, because we are referring to subsections 19(2) and 19(3) whereas clause 6 of the bill deals exclusively with clause 17 of the current legislation. Consequently, the Liberal member's amendment does the same thing as the NDP amendment which was ruled out of order earlier. We are going to have to find an acceptable procedure. Either we allow the debate or we don't. I understand the perverse side of the situation: everyone may find an amendment attractive, but if we do that, we create a new way of proceeding: we have consensus on a clause that we are all prepared to entertain, it will deemed in order. Sooner or later, however, I think that you will have a problem with the legislative authorities. We need to clarify the situation.

• 1845

[English]

The Chair: I do understand. There was some confusion at the beginning.

Is it my understanding, Georges, that the purpose of your amendment is to reduce the number of claimants or the benefits that will have to be repaid? Is that the idea of it?

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: No. This amendment pertains to an irritant that has already been criticized on several occasions. As to whether or not the motion is in order, I would say that, for one thing, it has no financial impact. Take, for instance, the amendment made by my colleague from the NDP earlier, which he felt had no financial impact, and which was in order. We debated the amendment and we voted on it.

I feel that this amendment is admissible because, for one thing, it has no financial impact. Consequently, we can vote on it.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, we will wind up with two different approaches. We will have allowed a motion from the Liberal majority to amend an article not provided for in Bill C-2 but we will have rejected a similar motion from another party.

Financial impact is not what determines whether or not these clauses are in order. Rather, it is a legislative constraint that whereby we can amend only those clauses that already exist in Bill C-2. If we were to add a clause such as that one—and I find this difficult to say since I do not want to take benefits away from people—, if we start agreeing to them, why should we refuse the others? And what about all the other briefs that we received?

The solution is to obtain a consensus to include this amendment in the next report. That is perhaps the solution.

[English]

The Chair: I agree. I've heard it now and I've tried to get my head around it, but 19(2) and 19(3) are not in the bill. They're outside of the bill, so in that sense it's inadmissible.

Georges Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: Mr. Chairman, aren't these aspects, which could be integrated, not included in the preamble to the bill, in the summary of the bill?

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, logic dictates that clause...

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute.

Go ahead, Georges. Repeat.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I was also basing myself on the legislative summary, which allows for the admissibility of such an amendment.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, this is out of order.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Did the chair rule?

The Chair: I ruled it out of order. Next.

That having been said, the Liberal amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, which are consequential to L-1, are also inadmissible. That's everything but 6.

(Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 11)

The Chair: We have a Canadian Alliance amendment on clause 11. Let's take it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On page 4.

The Chair: This is Canadian Alliance, CA-1, Val Meredith. It is inadmissible, as it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the royal recommendation. Okay. How's that?

• 1850

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

The Chair: I call clause 12, and Liberal amendment L-6.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib): Mr. Chair, I call on Mr. McFee—he's an HRDC official—to come to the table, because I had a discussion about this intensity business

[Translation]

and I must tell you that I was happy to see this measure...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. Mr. McFee.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: ...to see that the amendment was there now. Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid, but I am always concerned that every time an amendment is made, many other things are affected. I would like to ensure that this amendment will not result in any repercussions on workers, that these workers will not be penalized.

Could you provide some reassurance.

[English]

that there will be no negative impact on workers if we pass this amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon W. McFee (Director, Policy and Legislative Development, Department of Human Resources Development): Tell me, where are you? You have gone a little bit fast. Does that pertain to the amendment on intensity?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Intensity.

Mr. Gordon McFee: All right. And your question is about adopting...

[English]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: If we adopt that, could there be a negative impact on workers?

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon McFee: According to an analysis that was finished just a few days ago, it seems that a small number of people could receive very small overpayments because of this provision.

If you wish, I can explain that.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes.

Mr. Gordon McFee: It is a bit complicated, but I will explain it.

This is a situation where a person receives benefits while the amount earned by the person during the week precludes any benefits at all.

Let us take a person whose benefit rate is $200 and who earns $260 during a week. In such cases, people are allowed to receive 25% of their benefit rate before earnings become deductible.

To illustrate the example I just gave, I would say that there is no problem at all when a person with a $200 rate of benefits per week receives a sum of $250. If this person received more than $250, there would be a deduction. Let us take a person whose benefit rate is $200; this person can receive a total of $250. If he receives $260, there are no benefits to be paid at all. Zero. Thus, when we use the table to calculate the benefit rate and the number of eligible weeks, that week does not count. It is not included.

The bill you are currently studying—the intensity provision—will affect the benefit rate... In the example I just gave, the benefit rate was 50%, because the person was subject to the intensity rule.

If this bill is passed, beginning on October 1st, 2000, the same person will get a retroactive increase of his benefit rate which will rise to 55%. In the example I just gave, this would give $220. Since the benefit rate has increased, the amount a person can earn has also increased. Thus, if someone's benefit rate is now $220, the total amount he can earn before losing benefits is $270. This may not be an exact figure, but it is the approximate amount. They will be getting $5 or $10 in extra benefits for that week beginning on October 1st, 2000. This week is thus taken into account retroactively. If the person continued receiving benefits during the following weeks, he will have to deal with an overpayment. The following weeks would be non-eligible and would have to be recovered.

[English]

The Chair: Jeannot, could I ask a question?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. McFee, does this have the effect of repealing section 15? These increases you're describing are due to the repealing of section 15.

• 1855

Mr. Gordon McFee: The situation I just described is due to the retroactive implementation of getting rid of section 15. It's an unintended effect, if that's the point you're trying to get at.

If the repealed section had been implemented on October 1, the system would have simply done the calculations. Because it's being implemented after the fact, people's benefit rates can change after the fact. In fact, they will. We're now in the month of March, and the effective implementation date, if the bill passes, will be October 2000.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification. I understand very well why we would want to correct subsection 12(2), but I would like someone to explain the contents of (3), where it says:

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, in respect of any week of the beneficiary, with regard to benefits referred to in that subsection, And then there are (a), (b), (c). I understand that you basically do not want to penalize those who will receive retroactive sums, except in cases where a person has been found guilty of an offence.

Mr. Gordon McFee: Mr. Chairman,

[English]

I'm at a loss. I don't have the piece of paper the member is looking at, so I don't know what he's talking about. I haven't seen the amendment.

The Chair: Jeannot Castonguay will bring it down to you, Mr. McFee.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I will go over my explanation again. The amendment is under L-6 at the top of the page.

Mr. Gordon McFee: There is an L-6.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thus I will go over my explanation again. In the new 12(2), it says that when retroactive sums are paid, the person will not be penalized by having to make repayments because of the increased amount. This is what you just explained.

But then paragraph (3) says:

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, in respect of any week of benefits referred to in that subsection,

(a) one or more penalties are imposed on the claimant

(b) is found guilty...

(c) is found guilty...

Thus you are trying to ensure that the added retroactivity will not penalize anyone, unless it results from an offence. Do you understand? Is my question clear?

Mr. Gordon McFee: I understand the question very well. I'm still reading the amendment to be sure I have understood it well.

Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

Mr. Gordon McFee: If I understand correctly...

A voice: French.

Mr. Paul Crête: You may speak English. There are interpreters here.

Mr. Gordon McFee: According to my reading of the document before me, you are right.

Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to have explanations on paragraph (4) at the bottom of amendment L-6:

(4) A claimant referred to in subsection (2) shall not make any other claim for benefits, and is not entitled to receive any other payment of benefits, in respect of any week referred to in that subsection.

Mr. Gordon McFee: According to my reading, at first glance, it says that if someone has benefited from the provisions of subsection (2), he cannot do so a second time under (4). Subsection (4) excludes a second payment for the same week, if I understand correctly.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: In this respect, someone could eventually get a retroactive payment for a given week, without having declared new employment, at the time of filing his claim, for some reason or other, especially if this happens during the final weeks before the retroactive payment. The claimant could find himself in a situation where, under subsection (4), he could not claim the extra amount that could result from other employment. Let us take someone working 20 hours a week on a job who should get $2.50 or $3 in retroactive payments on account of that and who suddenly gets 15 extra hours in a new job. Subsection (4) would take away his right to claim anything for this new job, if I understand correctly.

Perhaps I would like to bring in a subamendment to eliminate subsection (4), which, in any case, could not make anyone receive any significant amount, unless you can demonstrate to us that this could create serious administrative problems.

• 1900

Mr. Gordon McFee: If I understand the meaning of subsection (4), it covers only those who have taken advantage of subsection (2). This would simply prevent anyone from taking advantage of it twice. In other words, if I understand your question, if a case had to be revised because of new information, there would be no problem, unless the person made a claim under subsection (2) twice.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Has anyone moved this amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, it's proposed.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I move a subamendment.

[English]

The Chair: By the way, I'm listening to this because I haven't ruled on it yet. I need the information as well, and we're gathering information here. I'll rule on it. Do you want me to rule on it now?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I need no further information. I am ready to move a subamendment which would strike out subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed amendment, which means that only subsections (1) and (2) would be left. I would get rid of (3) and (4).

The Chair: Jeannot or Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I request a vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On my subamendment?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if, having looked at this, you have decided it's out of order, then why are we—

The Chair: No, if I can tell you this as well as I can, I've decided that it is in order. I've been told the fact that the amounts of money are small is not a procedural argument. I've been told the unintended effect is not a procedural argument. But it does seem to me that, at the most, the government is losing revenue rather than increasing expenditures. On those grounds, I would say it is admissible.

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chair: Just a moment. If we have a subamendment, I am quite willing to hear the subamendment now.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: The subamendment reads as follows: I move that we strike out subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed amendment.

[English]

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a question. Was amendment L-7 rejected?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, it's gone. It was eliminated with the original amendment.

Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I was just wondering, Mr. Chair, what happened to L-7?

The Chair: It was a consequential amendment, and it was eliminated.

(Clause 15 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Paul Crête: On division.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Paul Crête: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: As soon as possible.

The Chair: Colleagues, is there any other business? Can I say this, then? In all honesty, in the light of our discussion of before, when we were in camera, I would suggest that the steering committee meet next week. I will set the time and the place for that meeting. We will then discuss future business, beginning with the point that was made in our earlier motion.

I'm going to go to Raymonde Folco and then Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank personally, and also, no doubt, on behalf of the members of my caucus, the members of the opposition, who helped us to adopt a very important bill for the Canadian people. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to thank all the Committee members, and, even though they are not all here, all the witnesses for the results we have achieved. We played the parliamentary game well and perhaps we proved today that listening to witnesses is worthwhile.

• 1905

I think that it is important to tell them this, because many will leave in a state of frustration because all the needed amendments are not brought to the bill immediately. At least there is some hope. Their presentations will not have been in vain and they will lead to further amendments, which I hope will be as substantial as possible, during the coming weeks.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf, I would like to thank the research staff, the legislative staff, and our clerk. I would also like to thank you all, and, as Paul did, I thank all our witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned at the call of the chair.