[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 10, 1995
.1553 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon everyone. Today we are examining the ninth report. If my memory serves me correctly, we have already examined it. Today we are just looking at some changes that Mr. Fillion has suggested. I believe that the Clerk has already passed out the changes. The first addition is to paragraph 12. So, we should turn directly to page 2, in both the French and English versions, paragraph 12, addition 1.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Fillion, if he has any comments for us about addition 1, paragraph 12. Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Everyone was in agreement about the recommendation concerning the date. «That the Department inform the Committee of progress made as of December 31, 1995». That part remains the same. So at the end of this paragraph, I move that we add: «Finally, the Department shall indicate the number of recipients who appealed the Department's decisions.»
The Chairman: So at the end of the recommendation found in paragraph 12, you are suggesting that we add a sentence.
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: It would read as follows: «Finally, the Department shall indicate the number of recipients who appealed the Department's decisions».
Mr. Fillion: That is right.
The Chairman: The number of recipients who appealed.
Mr. Fillion: That is right.
The Chairman: Avez-vous des observations au sujet de cet ajout?
Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): Mr. Chairman, could we ask what the reason is for that addition?
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion.
.1555
Mr. Fillion: Of all the files that are processed, how many people appeal or do not accept the Department's decision? We are just asking for information so as to determine the success rate for rulings made about specific problems as compared with all rulings made.
[English]
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Am I on the right page? I think they're the wrong recommendations.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: I think so too. I tried to link that with paragraph 12, Mr. Chairman. I have a hard time understanding why we are adding that to paragraph 12. Unless I am not on the right page either.
The Chairman: I am going to read out the last sentence of the recommendation in paragraph 12. It suggests adding the following at the end of the following sentence: «The Department will also have to set up mechanisms in order to evaluate and be accountable for the results of this strategy.» Your addition comes after that sentence.
Mr. Fillion: That is right. Immediately after. You have to look at it in terms of the way paragraph 12 has been drafted.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, you are suggesting a way of evaluating the mechanisms by taking the number of people or recipients...
Mr. Fillion: ...of people or recipients who appealed the Department's decision.
[English]
The Chairman: You don't agree?
Mrs. Sheridan (Saskatoon - Humboldt): Mr. Chairman, I just don't think that's the proper place for that type of recommendation. We're talking about a communications strategy. We're not talking about evaluation of cases.
The Chairman: If you don't agree with that we're going to vote on this.
Ms Whelan: Okay, vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what Ms. Whelan is saying. The paragraph deals with the communication strategy as well as the implementation of mechanisms to evaluate the result of this communication strategy. Then we tack on a sentence that says: «The Department shall indicate the number of recipients who appealed the Department's decisions.» Once again, I do not see any link between that sentence and the communication strategy that we are dealing with in this paragraph.
Mr. Fillion: In the communication strategy, the Department reports on everything it has done during the year to recover certain amounts. Consequently, the recovery of these amounts is part of the information that has to be disclosed.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, if ever we were to retain your addition, I think it would be better to incorporate it into the recommendation found in paragraph 25.
Mr. Fillion: You think so?
The Chairman: Paragraph 25 states: «That the Department report on the situation...concerning the...appeal process.» If ever we do keep your addition, I think it would be better in that paragraph. It is up to you whether you want to suggest that so that we can vote on it.
[English]
Mr. Grose (Oshawa): Yes, that makes more sense there.
[Translation]
The Chairman: What do you think of putting that addition in paragraph 25?
[English]
Ms Whelan: We've done that.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, what do you think?
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that does not go at all with paragraph 12. So if we could dispose of paragraph 12, perhaps Mr. Fillion could re-submit his addition at what he feels is the appropriate place.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, are you going to move that we add this to paragraph 25?
Mr. Fillion: Well, you'll see. I am going to check this.
The Chairman: Fine. We agree. We will remove it from paragraph 12. Now let us move to addition 2, paragraph 13. Do you have any comments, Mr. Fillion?
Mr. Fillion: Yes. In the recommendation about pension programs, at the end of the first line and on the second line, we should replace «...information on the future costs of pension programs.»
So we would replace this expression with «Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security program», so we use the correct terminology in our discussions.
.1600
So, everywhere we see the expression «pension programs», we should replace it with the commonly used names in the case of all departments - such as the Department of Revenue, and make the appropriate corrections in Part III of the Estimates.
The Chairman: So you suggest that we use the common terminology.
Mr. Fillion: This is an explanation for the future costs of pension programs.
[English]
Mr. Grose, do you have something to add?
Mr. Grose: No, I'm fine, thank you.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): If you're going to change from pension programs to the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security program, you'd better include the guaranteed income supplement there as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Yes, there are three official names commonly used at the Revenue and Finance Departments, where people always speak about the Canada Pension Program, Income Security and Old Age Security.
[English]
The Chairman: Would you agree with what was proposed by Mr. Williams and Mr. Fillion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next addition...paragraph 16, addition 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: At the end of the last recommendation, paragraph 16, we would ask that the department be given a specific deadline, that it be asked to reply by the end of the session, that is by the end of June.
We would ask that the department provide the committee with the details about the content of its business plan, and that it do so, if possible, by the end of this session, that is by June 30 or September 1. It could be September 1. We are just asking for a deadline by which we want an answer.
The Chairman: Your want to put a deadline.
Mr. Fillion: Right. So we could say that we want the business plan by September 1.
The Chairman: September 1.
[English]
It's up to you. It doesn't matter to me.
Ms Whelan: Do you want it on September 1, 1995?
The Chairman: Carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion, on addition 4, paragraph 21.
Mr. Fillion: In paragraph 21, we would add a sentence between the sentence ending with «as planned» and before the sentence beginning with «for committee recommendations». Has everyone found the place?
The Chairman: Before...
Mr. Fillion: We read the following sentence in paragraph 21; «however, it wants to ensure that the Department indeed will take the measures as planned». Here I would like to add the following: «it should be noted that the government made a commitment to eliminate the backlog between 1985-86 and 1991-92 with respect to sums fraudulently obtained by the beneficiaries.»
My addition is taken from the Action Plan report of the Income Security Program.
This sentence is taken from page 7 of the French version of the March 1995 report about the Department being prepared to report on the backlog between 1985-86 and 1991-92. So this is merely a repetition.
.1605
I would like to add something to recommendation 5. I would like to be clearly understood. In its action plan, the Department states that it would be prepared to table information concerning the 1985-86 backlog.
Mr. Paradis: Did the Department make a commitment to do so when it appeared before us?
Mr. Fillion: I am referring to a document that was tabled here.
The Chairman: By the Department?
Mr. Fillion: It was tabled during our questioning of the witnesses. I believe it is an integral part of the committee's report.
The Chairman: You are saying that this appears in full in the report.
Mr. Fillion: The question was about the ``planned recovery of money fraudulently obtained''. We were simply told that a complete report could be provided for these amounts for the years 1985-86 and 1986 to 1992.
Mr. Paradis: I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. The text we are being given does not seem to reflect quite the commitment that our honourable colleague suggests. It states: ``As planned by March 1995, we anticipate a complete clean-up resolution of 1985-86, 1991-92 backlogs''.
I don't think the words ``we anticipate'' in this context imply such a strong commitment as our colleague from the Opposition suggests.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman...
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, if we were to amend your wording to read: ``The government anticipates eliminating the 1985-86 and 1991-92 backlog.'' Would you agree with the words ``the government anticipates''?
Mr. Fillion: I will see whether this has any impact on recommendation 85.
The Chairman: Would you agree with that?
Mr. Paradis: No.
The Chairman: I will give you the floor one last time, and then we will vote. Go ahead, Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion: It is important to consider the whole paragraph that appears in the Department's action plan. ``We anticipate a...resolution... ``We anticipate'', I agree with your point, but if we read further on, we see, ``the recovery process will have been developped and all dates resulting from illegal acts will be introduced into the database each month''.
Now that the Department is computerized, it can be up to date. So I fail to see why the Department would not be prepared to provide this information.
The Chairman: Alright. We will vote on the motion.
[English]
We'll vote on that with the addition 4 at paragraph 21.
Motion negatived
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will now move to addition 5, which is still on paragraph 21. Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion: It is merely a clarification. It would not change much in paragraph 21. We would just add to the end of the recommendation the following sentence: "The department should state how much progress has been made toward eliminating the backlog of amounts fraudulently obtained by beneficiaries." That would enable us to determine for which years the backlog has been completely cleaned up. If the department managed to recover these amounts for 1985-1986, how much further has it progressed - to 1993, 1994 or 1991-1992? So, it would be able to provide this information.
Mr. Paradis: I am wondering about something here, Mr. Chairman.
.1610
It says here ``fraudulently obtained by the beneficiaries'', whereas paragraph 21 refers more to overpayments. There is a difference between an ``overpayment'' and money that is obtained fraudulently. Is the idea of ``fraudulent'' activity being introduced here by our colleague mentioned anywhere else?
As far as I'm concerned, the suggestion being made to introduce the idea of ``fraudulent'' activity is inconsistent with the use of the term ``overpayment'' in the text I have in front of me.
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, when you talk about ``fraudulent'' activity, are you referring to overpayments or to something else?
Mr. Fillion: I am talking about activity considered to be fraudulent, and this is in relation to the action plan tabled by the Department. Of course, since there was no agreement to accept...
The Chairman: So, you are not talking about overpayments.
Mr. Fillion: I'm talking about payments that were obtained fraudulently. The idea would be to state that the department is prepared, with the technical capabilities it now has, to provide us with information regarding the progress it has made in recovering moneys obtained fraudulently.
This is obviously directly related to what I suggested adding earlier.
The Chairman: What you're saying, Mr. Fillion, is that addition number 4 was already rejected. If this new suggestion is linked to your previous suggestion, then I think I should remind you again that the latter was rejected! Do you still wish to propose your addition number 5?
Mr. Fillion: Yes, you can call the question now.
[English]
Any comments? Mr. Williams?
Are you ready for voting?
Mr. Paradis: Yes.
The Chairman: All those in favour of addition 5 to paragraph 21?
Motion negatived
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will now move on to addition 6 to paragraph 23. Mr. Fillion, do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Fillion: The recommendation in paragraph 23 refers primarily to voice mail. A number of petitions have in fact been tabled in the House on this very matter. My addition simply clarifies the information we want the Department to provide us. I am therefore suggesting adding two paragraphs to paragraph 23:
``As regards its voice mail system, the Department shall make available information regarding the cost of this initiative, the number of calls received up to March 31, 1995 and the savings realized, and indicate whether its clients do in fact appreciate the new system and believe that service has definitely improved as a result.''
When the Department table its report, it will be required to include this information.
I then propose to add the following:
``In addition, the Department must reduce the number of forms used''. Senior citizens have to fill out 14 separate forms when applying for the Canada Pension Plan and old age security.
By reducing the number of forms that it requires senior citizens to fill out, the number of phone calls the department receives would automatically drop.
I am therefore suggesting we add these two paragraphs to the recommendation in paragraph 23, asking that the department report on the number of phone calls received up to December 31, 1995. We could keep the same date - in other words before January 31, 1996, rather than March 31, 1995, as I have stated in my proposal, since that date has already passed. We could give them up to January 31, 1996 to provide that information.
The idea is to get additonal information about the real effectiveness of a service about which everyone, on both sides of the House, has received complaints.
[English]
The Chairman: Any comment on this addition?
Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the concern I have is the fact that the date that's being proposed has already passed. I don't know if they've asked whether or not the clients like the new system or not. I don't want the government spending any money to go back and ask people to do any kind of survey.
.1615
So if those questions weren't asked, I don't think they're appropriate after the fact. I don't have a problem with asking them to evaluate the voice-mail system, but only based on the statistics or the data they've already taken. I don't think we should be setting the questions after the fact.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: First of all, as far as the date is concerned, we're talking about January...
The Chairman: January 31, 1996.
Mr. Fillion: ...31, 1996.
The Chairman: But we are wondering whether...
Mr. Fillion: Whether the Department's clients really like the new system or not... It seems to me that with all the studies that will be going forward, if we don't actually consult the people affected...
The Chairman: And what about the data that's already been collected...
Mr. Fillion: Yes, but will they be in a position to say just how effective or valuable that system is based on the data they now have? There is no plan to consult the public.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I think the recommendation here that starts ``with respect to its voice-mail system'' is far too detailed and specific, Mr. Chairman. The recommendation as its being proposed asks to find out whether or not the clients really care for the new system and whether they consider it a net improvement in the service. Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering what the proposer would propose as an alternative if the clientele are saying they don't like the new voice-mail system.
I think it is appropriate to ask the department to ensure that the communication system is performing well. That's the important thing - that it is performing well. The method they determine to ensure the service is performing well is the department's purview. It is not our purview to say it has to be voice-mail and if voice-mail is not being perceived as desirable by the clientele for us to not even propose an alternative. I don't think we should be getting into that amount of detail.
I understand and appreciate what the proposer is trying to achieve. We have seen a situation where the department, in my opinion, has fallen down very badly; it has taken a long time and a significant amount of prodding by this committee to rectify its problems. I will be the first to jump on it with two feet if it doesn't rectify it this time around. But I do not think it's within the realm of our responsibility to tell them exactly how to fix the problem. They're getting paid the big dollars.
[Translation]
The Chairman: If I can just summarize the discussion thus far, it has been agreed that the date of March 31, 1995 should be changed to January 31, 1996, but beyond that, opinion is divided.
Could all those in favour of addition 6 to paragraph 23 please raise their hands?
[English]
All those against that addition on that paragraph?
[Translation]
The addition is negatived.
We are now on addition 7, paragraph 27, Mr. Fillion.
With respect to your addition 1, I believe I asked that you carry it forward to paragraph 25. Would you like us to take another look at it now?
Mr. Paradis: No, that will not be necessary, because I believe we received everyone's consent to procede.
The Chairman: ...was carried.
Mr. Paradis: We will simply insert it here.
The Chairman: If you agree, we could insert addition 1 at the top of the page after paragraph 25. Do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Fillion: No, I do not. That is where it should be inserted.
The Chairman: So, is it agreed that we will insert addition 1 immediately after the recommendation at paragraph 25? Is there unanimous consent?
.1620
[English]
Mr. Paradis: Yes.
The Chairman: It's unanimous.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy, but I think we've got a little bit of an oxymoron right here, where they say to indicate real spending and savings. I think a clarification would have been in order to indicate the cost of the implementation of the new system and the savings achieved through the implementation to date. It would have been a little bit more clear. But if everybody's happy with the terminology.... I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it be clarified and amplified.
Ms Whelan: Are you talking about the first part of the recommendation?
We're adding number one to paragraph 25.
Mr. Williams: My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I had understood that there was unanimous agreement on additions 1 to 25. Do you have any comments to make with respect to clause 7, paragraph 27?
Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion: Following the recommendation at paragraph 27, we would simply add, with respect to each progress report: ``The Minister will have to indicate real spending and savings made to date in relation to the recovery project.''
[English]
Mr. Williams: I mean to make my comments again, Mr. Chairman. In particular, I think -
The Chairman: Yes. This is the right place.
Mr. Williams: - we should elaborate on it. I know it's reasonably clear, but someone reading this without knowing where we're coming from might have a problem. We've got a bit of an oxymoron, as I said before, where we're trying to figure out real spending and savings at the same time.
I would amplify what the mover is suggesting and say that in each progress report the department will have to indicate the cost of the implementation of the new programs and the amount of savings that has been realized compared to the previous systems.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Since I'm not an accountant, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to accept that motion.
The Chairman: You agree with what Mr. Williams just said, then?
Mr. Fillion: Yes, particularly after hearing his detailed suggestion.
The Chairman: So, your addition will be replaced by Mr. Williams's suggestion.
Mr. Fillion: I'm sure we can agree on this, even though I may not know all the right technical terms.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, could you summarize the change being made here?
The Chairman: Yes, I will ask Mr. Williams to slowly re-read his motion.
[English]
Mr. Williams, can you repeat your motion exactly?
Mr. Williams: Do you want me to repeat it exactly?
Mr. Chairman, I've made my comments. They're on the record. If we pass your motion, that will be later to allow the researchers to make some editorial changes that can be picked up at that time.
Basically, what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if you read the proposal, it says to indicate real spending and savings made to that date. That is a conundrum or an oxymoron. I said to indicate the cost of the installation of the new programs and the amount of savings that realizes compared to the previous systems.
The Chairman: Are you agreed with what was said by Mr. Williams?
Ms Whelan: I don't have a problem with what Mr. Williams has proposed. I think that, as we discussed earlier before the meeting, we decided we'll wait for the transcripts before reports are presented in the House.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, to avoid the kind of errors that have slipped in recently, the report will be tabled before the subcomittee so that it can be checked before being tabled in the House.
Ms Whelan: Perfect.
The Chairman: I gather, then, that we all agree in principle on the idea and that the final wording will be brought forward to be reviewed by the subcommittee. I believe our researcher has taken enough notes to be in a position to summarize in one sentence Mr. Williams's motion.
[English]
Ms Michelle Salvail (Committee Researcher): We'll have to indicate the cost of the implementation of the new program and real spending and savings made compared to the previous systems.
Mr. Williams: No. Delete real spending and savings. They will....
Ms Whelan: No. It's the amount of savings realized compared to previous programs.
Ms Salvail: It's to previous programs.
The Chairman: Does everyone agree with that?
[Translation]
It's unanimous.
.1625
Mr. Fillion: With respect to the report, I would like to raise a question of privilege.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion: What happens to the suggestions that I made that were rejected? Will they actually appear in the report to be tabled in the House?
The Chairman: The clerk tells me they will appear in the minutes of today's meeting, but that they will not be included in the actual report to be tabled in the House. The ninth report will become the tenth report.
Mr. Fillion: I see. So, if I want my recommendation number 6 to be in the report, what is the proper procedure? I am just seeking some information here.
The Chairman: Well, that brings me back to what we discussed earlier. The normal procedure is to ask the committee if it would agree to append a dissenting opinion to the report. You would have to present your dissenting opinion in the form of a motion.
Mr. Fillion: In other words, I must have the committee's approval to include that recommendation in the report. It would appear in the form of a dissenting opinion...
The Chairman: Yes, it would be your dissenting opinion.
Mr. Fillion: Yes, but my dissenting opinion is the opinion of my party. I do not see why the members of another party should be able to pass judgement on my right to present a dissenting opinion.
The Chairman: Well, you certainly have the option of producing a completely separate report. But the advice I have been given is that in this case, we are talking about a committee report. Therefore, if you wish to include a dissenting opinion in that report, you must have the approval of the full committee.
Mr. Fillion: So, if I want the two paragraphs I proposed earlier to appear in the report as a dissenting opinion, the other members of the committee must give their consent.
The Chairman: Exactly.
Mr. Fillion: And I have to present it in the form of a motion.
The Chairman: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Fillion: No? What do I have to do then?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Grose.
Mr. Grose: I think we're talking at cross purposes here. The committee must concur on the majority report, which is the one we just concurred on. If you want to submit something other than what is in the report that we've just concurred with, then you have to submit a minority report. You don't need our approval to do that. You can go ahead and do it on your own.
[Translation]
The Chairman: However, the committee must agree to append the minority report to the majority report. This is done in many different committees, but the committee must first give its consent. What you must do is present a motion to that effect.
Mr. Fillion: A motion to insert the two paragraphs.
The Chairman: Yes, to insert them at the end of the report as a dissenting opinion.
Mr. Fillion: Fine.
The Chairman: Are members prepared to allow Mr. Fillion to add two paragraphs to the committee report as a dissenting opinion?
This is something that is commonly done in all committees. I know from personal experience that dissenting reports have been submitted by the Reform Party in other committees. I also know the Bloc Québécois has done the same. In such cases, the dissenting opinion appeared at the end of the majority report.
[English]
Ms Whelan: I don't want to disagree, but my understanding of a minority report is that they don't concur in the majority at all and they then add their minority report to the report. We've made numerous concessions and amendments based on amendments put forward by the Bloc or other members of the committee and now we're talking about - we got all that, but now we didn't get this little part, so now we're going to have a minority report too. That's not negotiation.
The Chairman: If you don't agree -
Ms Whelan: No, I don't agree.
The Chairman: Okay, if you don't agree, we're going to vote on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the simple fact that the committee has accepted amendments in any way invalidates a party's right to express a dissenting opinion with respect to a point dealt with in a report. Were that the case, we would have to sit down and negotiate on issues where there was disagreement so that a report could always be concurred in. That's a strange kind of democracy.
It is absolutely true that we have discussed various amendments. However, we are not fully satisfied with the report as a whole.
.1630
Then what is the procedure? We are hearing contradictory opinions.
The Chairman: In order to enlighten the committee, I can read your Standing Order 108 to which the Clerk has drawn my attention. It is said that a dissenting report can be «a brief appendix [] containing such opinions or recommendations dissenting from the report or complementary to it». In other words, it can be very brief, a few sentences or a few paragraphs. The committee decides whether it agrees to append this as a minority report at the end of the majority report.
Is this a motion?
Mr. Fillion: I'm moving that these two paragraphs be appended in order to make the position of the Bloc very clear.
The Chairman: I will give you a few seconds to think it over.
Mr. Paradis, would your colleagues agree to suspend the meeting for a few minutes?
Mr. Paradis: The Chairman wants to suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
The Chairman: Yes. We are going to adjourn for a couple of minutes to allow the government members to have a caucus meeting.
.1641
The Chairman: We're resuming this meeting. Mr. Fillion, you were going to make some comments.
Mr. Fillion: I've consulted my colleagues and we've agreed to add the following to the first recommendation concerning paragraph 23: ``That the Department report on the telephone call situation, including voice-mail.''
As for the date, that was settled earlier.
The Chairman: January 31, 1996.
Mr. Fillion: Then, in the second paragraph of the recommendation, I would add: "That the Department attempt to reduce the number of forms".
The Chairman: You're keeping the second paragraph.
Mr. Fillion: The second paragraph, yes.
The Chairman: And the first?
Mr. Fillion: Well, it is up to you to decide. We would have to add what I've mentioned earlier.
The Chairman: What you've just read and has been noted.
Mr. Fillion: Yes. I don't know whether Mr. Paradis and his colleague have come to an agreement.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, there's no evidence that voice-mail is part of this whole testimony, as far as we know. Can anyone clarify that? Was voice-mail even discussed when they were here? Was it part of it? How does it fit in? The percentage of calls answered rose from 39% to 90%.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I could ask the researcher. I think it was mentioned during the testimony.
Mr. Fillion: The elderly complain mainly about voice-mail and the number of forms to fill out.
Mr. Chairman, if it is impossible to agree, I will keep my two paragraphs.
The Chairman: I would like to hear the opinion of the government people, otherwise we're back to the minority report with your two paragraphs.
[English]
Any comments? Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the minutes could say that voice-mail was there as an option. As one of my colleagues just pointed out, telephone calls include voice-mail, so there's no reason to separate it out. It includes everything. When you dial on a telephone, you have an option, press 1 or stay on the line or hang up. There are three options. We're not going to spell out all three, so I don't see why we'd be spelling out one.
It doesn't make any sense to me because it's all-inclusive.
[Translation]
The Chairman: What I understand is that there's no agreement on these two paragraphs. Mr. Fillion, you still want your two paragraphs in?
Mr. Fillion: Both of them, as they are.
The Chairman: We will call a vote. This is the usual procedure followed by committees when there is a dissenting opinion.
[English]
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, before we go on, we are in agreement with the second part of the paragraph. So we propose to add:
Furthermore, the department will have to reduce the number of forms, if possible, that have to be filled in by elderly people applying to the CPP and OAS program in order to cut back on the number of telephone calls.
We'll add that as part of the recommendation in paragraph 23. We're proposing that as our motion. We're putting it forward.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The government members are ready to add...
Mr. Fillion: I tried to negotiate earlier, but I was told ``No''.
The Chairman: But they are now ready to add the second paragraph.
Mr. Fillion: They were ready earlier and I said no.
.1645
The Chairman: You said no.
Mr. Fillion: That's right.
[English]
Ms Whelan: We said no to the word ``voice-mail''. We're splitting it and we're agreeing, furthermore, to the second part of the recommendation for 23.
Mr. Fillion: We accept it.
Ms Whelan: We're not agreeing; we're putting it forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: So, we will be adding the second part, the second paragraph, to the committee's report.
The Chairman: You agree to the change as requested by government members who are ready to include the second paragraph in the report.
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: I believe that's unanimous. The second paragraph will be included in the report.
Mr. Fillion: It is the first paragraph that is at issue now.
The Chairman: Do you still want to have the first paragraph appended to the report as a minority report?
Mr. Fillion: Yes.
The Chairman: If there is no consensus, we will vote on that point.
Mr. Fillion: Agreed.
The Chairman: Who is in favour of appending the first addition to paragraph 23 to the end of the report as a minority report?
[English]
Mr. Williams: A point of order. I don't think we should be voting on whether or not we're putting in a minority report. If it's the Bloc's minority report then that's their minority report. I don't feel I should be voting on their minority report.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: That's right. Mr. Chairman, I've always understood minority reports in this way. Following the discussion of a report, it is up to a party to decide whether it wants to publish a minority report. It is not up to this committee to decide for the Bloc Québécois whether it will be making a minority report. We have no need to know whether we've negotiated the points at issue and whether they were agreed to by vote of 40, 60 or 90%. That is of no importance and it curtails our rights.
The Chairman: What I understand, Mr. Fillion, is that since your proposal was rejected by the committee, you want the first paragraph in question to be appended to the end of the report as a minority report. To do that, you need the approval of the committee to whom you made your submission. I asked for those who were in favour to signify that. You were the only one.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I'm in favour.
Motion negatived
[Translation]
The Chairman: The motion is defeated. No minority report will be appended to the report.
Mr. Paradis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Paradis.
Mr. Paradis: I would like us to use this as an example, and to obtain a legal opinion on it. I have trouble seeing why a minority report should receive everyone's approval in order to be submitted.
May we seek a legal opinion on that?
The Chairman: I have the same problem you have with this, Mr. Paradis. I know that this is done habitually in other committees and that the outcome is generally negotiated with the majority. I will ask the clerk to quote the relevant article from the Standing Orders.
The Clerk: The powers of committees are set out in Standing Order 108, and I quote:
108.(1)(a) Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time...
and these are the key words
...and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman...
And they even tell you where it should go, if the committee agrees that there should be one.
...containing such opinions or recommendations dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members...
Committees have been given that order and only the committee may exercise it. The committee authorizes the appendix; it does not normally authorize the text, but permission is given. It is up to the committee to decide.
[English]
Ms. Whelan: As there was no English translation, we ask that you read it in English for the exact wording.
The Clerk: In English it reads:
108.(1)(a) Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time....
- and these are the key words for minority dissenting opinion -
...and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman,...
- and, as I said in French, they even tell you where it should go, if you do agree to append one -
...containing such opinions or recommendations,
.1650
But it is the committee that is given the power to authorize that. It's the committee's report, so the committee decides what's in the report and what's appended to the report. No member of the committee has the right to table anything on his own on behalf of the committee, even when dissenting.
That's the practice. Committees don't usually vote on the text of the appendix, but they decide if they wish to have something appended to their report.
[Translation]
The Chairman: A minority report could be tabled without the approval of the committee but could not then be appended to the majority report.
An honourable member: Mr. Fillion, we can issue a press release.
Mr. Fillion: Yes, that's right.
An honourable member: There is another way.
The Chairman: Very well. Are there any questions?
Mr. Fillion: A question of privilege. One last comment.
In connection with the Standing Order that was just read, parliamentary culture in Canada puts opposition parties at the mercy of the government party. I have my doubts on the opinion you have been given, because in most committees there are minority reports that are verified by an advisor to see whether they are keeping with Canadian practice.
We need a legal opinion on this matter. Without it, no committee... They have only to agree beforehand, and no committee would ever issue...
It's all very well to say that there are other means at our disposal such as press releases, but press releases are just words, soon forgotten, whereas reports are records. They go into the archives, and are set out in committee proceedings, house records. They are an integral part of our work.
The Chairman: Indeed, Mr. Fillion, I have worked with other committees in the course of the past year and a half, and this is the first time where a committee has refused to append a minority opinion to a report.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I will conclude, Mr. Williams. There is a legal advisory service for members of the House of Commons. Perhaps you could ask for a legal opinion on this.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I'd like to move on to something else. I don't think we're going to resolve this situation right now. I do have to leave. I have some other business.
I'd like to make one minor change, Mr. Chairman, to item number 13.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I'd like to add the words ``in 1996''; that the department include information on the future cost of pension programs in 1996 in one of its official documents.
The reason I say that, Mr. Chairman, is that when I take a look at the proposal submitted to the committee by the deputy minister, he talked about the fact that - and I'm referring to page 10 of his report - it'll be an ongoing process. He hasn't given us any particular time as to when he is going to give us the additional information. I think we could have it by 1996. If he would include it in the part IIIs next year, that would be perfectly acceptable to me. I wouldn't want to just allow him to get on to it at his own discretion. Therefore, I'd like to see a date in there, such as 1996.
The Chairman: Do you agree to add ``in 1996'' in that recommendation?
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have is that the budget of this year proposed that there be a review of all the programs available for seniors, which I'm assuming will affect the future costs. It may be premature to ask for them to be in the estimates of 1996. I don't know if, as a committee, we asked the department when it would be possible for them to do that in light of the fact that there is this ongoing review starting in the fall. I'm just not sure whether or not this commitment can be met. Was it asked when they were at committee?
.1655
Mr. Williams: If that's a problem, Mr. Chairman, the government can respond when they respond to the committee report, if they find that due to changes and so on they will be unable to comply. I think it's a reasonable request to ask for it. If there's something along the lines being proposed that may not allow the government to respond, let them say so.
Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Chairman, I have a difficulty with the procedure here as well in that we've already dealt with number 13. I wonder if the member is proposing an amendment to the amendment, in which case it seems to me there are certain procedures that ought to be followed. The hon. member was seized a few moments ago with the same information he has just brought up now. The proper time was to bring it up then. It has passed and I would like to proceed, unless there's some compelling reason to bring in new information.
[Translation]
The Chairman: You are right, Mrs. Sheridan. We had studied the report paragraph by paragraph, and that is out of order. We are at the end of the meeting and we are going to vote. I am going to go over this again for Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams, on a point of order, a colleague has argued that your comments were out of order since we have studied the paragraphs, right up to paragraph 27. Your suggestion was certainly an interesting one, but it is out of order since we have concluded our study of the report. We shall now vote on the report as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. There is no requirement that we deal with them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We haven't passed the motion that we adopt the report. The report is still wide open. There is no requirement, just because we've moved on to another page, that we can't regress and go back; none whatsoever.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I will apply the procedure, unless the committee is willing to go back to paragraph 13 and agree to debate Mr. Williams' motion.
Mr. Fillion: I am in favour of that.
The Chairman: You are in favour?
[English]
Mrs. Sheridan: To go back? No.
Mr. Williams: We didn't even vote on 13. You can't say that's a closed deal, Mr. Chairman. We never voted on paragraph 13, saying that we approved that paragraph.
Ms Whelan: That was part of the second amendment proposed by the hon. member from the other side.
Mr. Williams: Yes, we agreed to his amendment but we didn't adopt 13 as it was amended.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, you will remember that we spent two weeks on this report. We went through this report paragraph by paragraph.
Today, we are meeting strictly to discuss Mr. Fillion's proposed add-ons. The whole report was already debated about two weeks ago.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, we have not approved the report. We have not approved any of these clauses. We have only approved the amendments that have been proposed. That is all we have approved. There is no requirement that we deal with this on a consequential clause-by-clause basis only. Therefore, it is perfectly in order to go back after we've heard from Mr. Fillion's interventions. I've allowed him to continue on and make all of his at the same time. Now that he is finished, I'm proposing one small amendment, Mr. Chairman. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it cannot be heard.
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, it's your last amendment?
Mr. Williams: It's the only one, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I am told that there is going to be a vote. The bells are beginning to ring. I think we will have to move.
Are you in favour of this addition to the report, yes or no?
In any case, we have to settle this. I am going to put it to a vote and we will vote on the report.
All those in favour of this addition?
We shall now vote on the report as a whole. The question is on the sheet that was distributed. Are you in agreement
[English]
that the draft report as amended be concurred in, that the chair be authorized to make such grammatical and editorial changes to the report as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report, subject to verification of the members of the subcommittee, and that the report as amended be presented by the chair of the committee to the House of Commons?
[Translation]
Concurred in unanimously.
There is a vote in the House. We should go there quickly.
[English]
The meeting is adjourned.