Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

.1546

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Maybe we can deal with a housekeeping matter now. There will be a bell ringing for a vote at 6:15 p.m. We'll break the committee at 5:40 p.m. or 5:45 p.m. because members have requested some time to have dinner prior to the vote. We'll come back after the vote.

Now we'll move to the officials. First of all, let me welcome you once again. The committee would like to listen to a presentation about the statistics on fraud to get a clarification of the report that was tabled.

Ms Norine Smith (Acting Executive Director, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): Do you want a clarification of the report, Mr. Chairman, or the fraud statistics?

The Chairman: Could you give a quick overview of the report, followed by a clarification of the statistics on fraud?

Ms Smith: Okay.

The document that was tabled just before lunch describes the two aspects of the areas in which it would be hoped that the additional savings would be achieved in order to pay for the amendments that have been proposed by a number of the members of this committee.

The first area is enhanced services with claimants to help them get back to work more quickly. The basic principle here is a fairly modest objective: if every claimant were to reduce their length of time on claim by as little as two or three days, that could save something of the order of $300 million in benefit pay-outs. That's the kind of very modest objective that is behind the idea of trying to step up our work with claimants to ensure that they have all the assistance they need to find new employment.

We'd be doing this through group information sessions, through increased counselling activities, through helping them develop their job search skills, and through job-finding clubs. There's a whole host of activities that we now undertake. The idea here is not a new type of service or intervention with claimants, but an expansion and enhancement, putting increased priority and focus within the department's front-line resources on this activity in order to help them make the adjustments they need as quickly as possible.

The second area is further information with respect to the fraud proposals that the minister discussed and presented briefly to the committee when he was last here. We'll be getting into this in a fair bit of detail when we come to the various provisions within the act, but it might be helpful to spend a few minutes to get an overview of it now.

There are a couple of provisions from Bill C-12 that increase the penalties imposed on claimants who are engaged in fraud, and then there are a couple of additional areas that are included in the amendments that you will have received or will shortly be receiving from the clerk.

To describe quickly the things that are already within Bill C-12, they both refer to the treatment of undeclared earnings. When a claimant is receiving benefits, they're expected to fill out their biweekly report card and indicate how much money they have earned.

.1550

In instances where a claimant has intentionally misreported or not reported the receipt of earnings, Bill C-12 already includes provisions that would ensure that the 25% allowed earnings while on claim was not deducted or no longer allowed in those circumstances of fraud, and that in addition, when calculating the penalty, the penalty would be made equal to the overpayment. The way in which penalties are currently calculated, there are many circumstances in which the penalty could be substantially less than the overpayment. So this is just making a simple dollar-for-dollar calculation.

Moving to the new proposals that were discussed by the minister, there are three that would pertain to employers. The first would be to establish a minimum penalty related to the sale or intentional falsification of a record of employment. The proposal is for a minimum penalty, a penalty that would be up to $12,000 for an employer who, as I say, falsifies or sells an ROE.

The second measure would be applicable in circumstances where there is collusion between an employer and a group of employees. This would provide for the option of a penalty applying to the employer that would be equal to the sum total of all the penalties that apply to the employees. Here we'd be choosing either the penalty structure that currently exists in the act, or the penalties that would apply by adding up all of the penalties that would apply to the employees who are engaged.

Again, I want to emphasize that it would apply in the case of collusion. The current penalty structure is such that there could be circumstances where the employer in fact has a very minor penalty relative to the scale of the collusion that has been undertaken, so there's a sort of levelling of the playing field in this instance.

The third area is with respect to the liability of corporate directors in circumstances of fraud within their company. This would be liability that would pertain when the corporate director is in a position to know and did not try to stop or may have actually participated in the fraudulent activity.

Turning then to the increased penalty provisions that would apply to claimants in instances of fraud, there are amendments that would establish higher entrance requirements for claimants who have engaged in fraud. A scale would be set out based on the dollar value of the fraud that occurred. So for fraud that was less than $1,000, overpayments of less than $1,000 would be considered a minor offence; overpayment of between $1,000 and $5,000 would be a serious offence; and overpayment of over $5,000 would be a very serious offence.

I'm using words that are slightly different from those in the paper here because the drafters felt that for comparability between the way in which these offences are described in the UI Act and the way they're described in other pieces of legislation, the words ``minor'', ``serious'' and ``very serious'' were more appropriate language than the words in here: ``minor'', ``major'' and ``serious''.

The entrance requirements would then depend on whether it was minor, serious or very serious. So for a minor offence, the entrance requirement would be the variable entrance requirement that would otherwise apply for that claimant plus 25%; a serious offence would be the variable entrance requirement plus 50%; and a very serious offence would be the entrance requirement plus 75%.

.1555

In the case of a repeat offence, the claimant has committed fraud more than once. There would be a doubling of the entrance requirement.

Those higher entrance requirements would apply for the next five years or for the next two claims, whichever occurs first.

It's anticipated that these increased penalties for fraud would lead to something in the order of $245 million worth of penalties and overpayments being returned to UI account. It's anticipated that the increased services with claimants would lead to at least $120 million worth of lower benefit pay-outs to claimants, and in fact, we're hopeful that the enhanced claimant services can be demonstrated to have a much bigger return on investment, if I could use those terms, to the UI account as we increase our services to claimants and are better able to help them get re-employed quickly.

Perhaps I'll turn the microphone to my colleague Ron Stewart, who could give a very brief overview of the statistics that were in the accompanying one-page document.

Mr. Ron Stewart (Director General, Control, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): As you can quite easily see, we have a fair volume of situations of claimant fraud within this program. It represents about 4% of the Canadians who collect UI at any given time within a calendar year.

Regarding the considerably smaller number of cases of employer fraud, the value of the administrative penalties has in general increased fairly significantly. The chart starts at 1991-92, but if it were go go back a couple of years, we would have been down around $20 million in penalties. So certainly in the last eight years or so we've gone from about $20 million to in excess of $100 million in claimant penalties. The employer penalty provisions have increased in value so that we're now to the point where the average employer penalty is about $2,800 and the average claimant penalty is $884.

The next line is really a description of the types of investigations. Basically it says that in the last fiscal year, 76% of the investigations that were undertaken were as a result of file matches, computer matches producing observations, which we follow up on.

The total value of overpayments has gone up significantly. This is not the total universe of overpayments; these are the overpayments that are generated through investigation and control activities.

The next number, which deals with the fraudulent amount of overpayments, is really a proxy number. The reality is that our administrative data systems don't segregate out fraud and non-fraud overpayments. So what we have to do is take the number of overpayments that are established, the number of penalties that are applied, and then do a proxy of that on the overpayment population.

Our feeling is that we have understated the value of the fraudulent overpayments, because in general a fraud situation is a purposeful act. There is the non-reporting of earnings and things of that nature. By going to the strict proxy, we have probably understated the value of the fraudulent overpayments, but we don't have the administrative data systems in place to state that concretely, although that's something we're working on.

.1600

Of course the last line is strictly a subtraction: total overpayments minus our proxy of the fraud overpayments leaves the non-fraud overpayments.

At present the investigation control function of the department returns about $11 for every dollar spent.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you for this interesting brief presentation.

In the table which you distributed, it is striking to note that the value of what you refer to as amounts of fraudulent overpayments has increased since 1991-1992 from $70 million to $93 million, which is no doubt slightly higher than the rate of inflation, whereas the value of non-fraud overpayments has increased from $90 million to $179 million.

You can no doubt provide explanations on, for example, the increased complexity to which the annual report of the Department of Human Resources Development referred. That struck me last year. It was pointed out that, given the increased complexity, more time was needed to process cases and more difficulties arose.

In view of these figures, how could it be argued that these measures could save $245 million by the year 2001? It is estimated that there will be savings of $245 million by the year 2001-2002. That is what is written on page 3, at least in the French version.

I imagine it means $245 million in addition to what is already there. The money there already goes into the system. In order to pay for further costs, you have to go and find "further" cases of fraud.

How can you penalize people when the cases of overpayment do not result from fraud? I'm not saying that I agree with your system, but I don't see how you're going to manage to do that when the figure for this year is $179 million, and you estimate that you will be able to save another $245 million by the year 2001.

[English]

Ms Smith: The proposals contained in this paper would increase the penalties for claimants who engage in fraud. As you can see, the number of claimants who have been engaged in fraud is not a perfectly constant number. It varies from year to year, but it's something over 100,000 claimants in every year.

The provisions already within the act and the increased entrance requirements are the two most significant ones in leading to returns to the UI account as a result of these measures. The increase in the entrance requirements in particular will make a fairly significant contribution.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: You say that this figure represents 4% of some three million Canadians. This figure includes the amount of fraudulent overpayments and also non-fraud overpayments. Is that the case?

[English]

Ms Smith: No, this is just the fraud.

.1605

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: How does that compare with the systems in other countries? I remember the Macdonald report saying that there was no point in trying to tighten up there because in all the systems studied, approximately 5% of claims were fraudulent. They didn't say that that was to be expected, but if a system was built only on the basis of fraud, it would not reflect the real situation.

[English]

Ms Smith: I'm not able to answer your question with respect to other countries. Maybe in a moment I'll turn the microphone over to my colleague.

We have done some evaluation analysis in this whole area of fraud to try to assess the full extent of the fraudulent activities that might be occurring out there that we have not detected, because obviously this 4% is what we have detected.

I can confirm this figure for the committee later, but my recollection is the level of fraud they estimated exists within the program is in the 5% to 7% range. So your basic point is quite correct that this is not so much finding additional fraud, though as computer systems become more sophisticated it is in fact possible to do a better job at detecting fraud through, for example, making sure there are earnings declared at tax time for every claimant who has filed an ROE. That's one of the things we've been doing in recent years that has contributed to a much greater detection rate in our fraud work.

Basically the provisions in Bill C-12 and in the amendments before the committee today are not directed so much at finding additional claimants engaged in fraud. It's more that for those claimants who are found engaged in fraud, the penalties would be somewhat larger because of the dollar-for-dollar treatment of penalties and overpayments, because of not allowing the 25% allowed earnings while on claim, and because of the entrance requirement increases when they return to the program.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: This is a very wide-ranging subject. In your constituency offices, the situation is no doubt like in mine. There are some people who have had problems and who get caught. They say it was not their fault, etc. Most of the people who come to see us are unable to pay and have serious problems.

How realistic is it to impose such penalties? Would that not just push more people onto welfare or the underground economy, particularly as the main penalty seems to be imposed when the person in question returns to the labour market?

[English]

Ms Smith: When the minister was last before the committee and describing these fraud proposals, he emphasized that for exactly the reason you are describing, he felt it was important to take a slightly different direction in the deterrence area with respect to fraudulent activities. That is why he is proposing provisions in this area based on entrance requirements rather than on penalties.

While there is some increase in the level of the penalties, the lion's share of the financial implications derives from the increased entrance requirements. His objective was to get people to work their way back into the program through the sweat on their brow in circumstances of fraud.

.1610

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: You cannot conclude that people facing such serious penalties would do what they have to in order to return or would be incapable of doing so. It is difficult to achieve savings of $245 million by the year 2001 on such a fragile basis.

[English]

Ms Smith: In addition, the principal objective of all penalty provisions with respect to fraud really is not to penalize but to deter in the first instance. I think that reinforces the importance of the monitoring provisions within the act to track this as well as all features of the implementation as it unfolds in order to see exactly what does happen.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I have my answer.

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): In the last part of paragraph (1), we are told that group information, counselling and other sessions will be mandatory and failure to attend without valid reason would result in a loss of benefits as authorized under the legislation.

Could you tell me what is meant by valid reasons? For example, if someone has to look after his or her child at home on that particular morning and did not notify the office, or if the person does not have a doctor's note, will he or she be in trouble? What are the valid reasons which would allow someone not to attend such a session without losing their benefits?

[English]

Ms Smith: Any reasonable excuse would be a valid reason. This is not intended to be an unreasonable objective. The claimant can always phone and say such and such has happened, and ask to reschedule and come to the next session. I don't know whether you want us to give more examples.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Who decides whether it is a valid reason? I have seen people deciding on what is or is not a valid reason, and such decisions have led to appeals, particularly as the legislation seems to suggest that you are guilty until proven innocent, which is quite different from the principle in the rest of our legislation.

The Mouvement Action Chômage offends many people who are clearly not cheats. However, they have to prove this and it becomes an extremely complicated process. Who will have the authority to decide whether a reason is valid? Will it be the person at the front line in the employment centre?

[English]

Ms Smith: The agents in the local offices would be responsible for setting up these interviews. I should also mention that the objective is always to make a reasonable ruling in these issues in the first instance; however, there is a very extensive appeal system if the claimant feels they have not been fairly heard.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: When I look at the table giving the figures for fraudulent and non-fraud overpayments, I can quickly see that the number of fraudulent overpayments has not increased very significantly. It seems to be perhaps slightly higher than the rate of inflation.

However, the amount of non-fraud overpayments has almost double, from $90 million to $179 million. It is almost double. How do you explain this increase? Is it not due to the complexity of the legislation? The situation for a few years has been like someone on a highway faced with five different signs indicating the speed limit. These signs go from 60 kilometres an hour, to 80, 70, 110 and 45. All of a sudden you go over the speed limit by 10 kilometres an hour and you are considered to be breaking the law. Is the increase in the amount not due to the great complexity of the legislation?

[English]

Mr. Stewart: First of all, we have many more programs now than we had five years ago that do file matches, so we have a higher value of overpayments being detected. Every file match that developed uncovered situations where people have been overpaid for whatever reason.

.1615

I stated earlier that it's my firm belief, having worked in this area for quite a while, that we have understated the value of the fraudulent payments vis-à-vis the non-fraudulent overpayments, not only because of the nature of fraud but also because of the relationship with the penalties. Our penalty provisions right now are designed, in general, so that $1 of overpayment is worth 50¢ to 75¢ of penalty. This number is here because we can't come up with a better one, but in my professional opinion, we've understated it.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You say that the amount of cheating is underestimated. Does that mean that we cannot get figures reflecting the real situation today in order to analyze what is happening?

You say that, at $93.4 million, the amount of fraudulent overpayments is underestimated. Does that mean that you have made another assessment which you had somewhere? What is the actual amount?

[English]

Mr. Stewart: It's all part of that total of $272 million. That $272.4 million is the universe of the uncovered overpayments by the investigation and control function, and all we're doing is attributing some of that to fraud and some of it to non-fraud. If we attribute more to the fraud, we would simply attribute less to the non-fraud, but we are just dealing with those figures within that one universe.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Do you think that if we increase the amount to which people were entitled, there would be a slight increase without people being penalized in terms of their benefits? Do you think that if the amount was increased significantly, you could considerably reduce the cost of investigations, which are not really very cost-effective given the amounts spent on them?

For example, if the amount was $100 instead of $50, would that not be an attractive job incentive, since there would be savings, no penalty and people would work more. Has this possibility been assessed?

[English]

Mr. Stewart: Not that I'm aware of, but I would state that the investigations are carried out because someone failed to report their earnings. It isn't so much whether they were allowed a lot of earnings or not a lot of earnings; what largely triggers an investigation is that they didn't declare their earnings.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If, instead of allowing someone to make declarable earnings of $50 a week, he or she were allowed to make $100 or $150 without losing part of their benefits, would you not resolve many of the investigation problems since people no longer be considered as dishonest, but simply as wishing to work?

Have you assessed at what amount demand becomes elastic? Would increasing the maximum make it possible to get rid of fraud and, possibly, the need for investigators, and thus in the final analysis the money could go to the claimants themselves?

[English]

Ms Smith: No, there's not been an evaluation of that question, but the provisions in this bill would in fact allow us to undertake such an evaluation once we get into the implementation. With one of the provisions we will be seeing the proposal of a floor being put on the allowable earnings.

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown.

Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is perhaps a small point, but it is something I have some curiosity about. The matter is on page 2, regarding increased financial penalties to employers, and it's a matter of jurisdiction.

.1620

The statement is involving the corporate directorship, I would imagine, of a company. I understand that fiduciary responsibilities and code of conduct are matters under which a corporate board of directors, whether they're for profit or not for profit, would operate. Usually within the provincial legislation there is an indemnity clause, or some other form of protection, for directors who operate in a corporate directorship.

Here's a case in point. When I was working in the private sector, I worked with a marketing association. There was a double indemnity clause within the marketing orders that we had from legislative counsel in the province of Alberta that protected the corporate board of directors from a whole host of abuses, or potential abuses, for which they really had no responsibility. There was also a code of conduct, and we were fully aware of our fiduciary obligations and responsibilities under that document.

My question is: have you looked at the matter of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the provinces and the federal government with respect to this particular element within your increased sanctions for fraud?

Mr. Luc Leduc (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): The matter wasn't examined from that angle. Basically, what we're proposing to do is to use a provision that's quite similar. It's found in the Income Tax Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act. It just creates a liability for the directors.

I'm not certain that their indemnity clauses or policies cover them for penalties. That's subject to renegotiations, probably. But if these indemnity policies would cover them, then they'd probably be indemnified with that.

But as Ms Smith was explaining, we're providing that the director, if he took reasonable steps to prevent the fraud, would not be held liable.

Mrs. Brown: Yes, but the point I was really trying to make was the matter of jurisdiction. Indeed, as for the board of directors, whether you're for profit or not for profit, you're already protected under the provincial legislation under which you operate. Indeed, is there not going to be a conflict between federal and provincial jurisdictions on a matter, for example, of fraud or a fraudulent claim?

Mr. Leduc: I don't think there will be any conflict between them because the employment insurance legislation will operate within its own sphere and will have its own rules, just as the Income Tax Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act have similar provisions. I don't expect any conflict.

Mrs. Brown: Okay. It's just something that I thought might be worth looking into. It may be an issue at some point, whereby you will be indeed facing exactly that very question, and it will come down to the conflict between jurisdictions, provincial or federal.

The other point I'd like to make is on page 1. You were talking about early intervention measures in your analysis. It would seem to me that those individuals on whom you have really spent the most amount of time describing are really those who have been in the system for quite some time.

If you're looking at early intervention, I would think you would want to be looking at employers and employees knowing at the outset their obligations and responsibilities under the new act. I understand certainly that there is an opportunity, and certainly an obligation, that we, as well as legislators, have to make everyone aware of early intervention measures, but when you really look at those individuals you have identified, there are those who have been in the system, and perhaps abusing it, for a very long time.

So I think your analysis may be a little bit at odds with the target group you have so identified. It's just a comment that I thought you may wish to address in your final writing of the paper.

Ms Smith: The reference to early intervention measures is a specific reference to the fact that with all of these claimant groups, and with as many claimants as we would have the resources to work with, the objective is to deal with them personally early on in their claims. So we would, hopefully within the first six weeks after they had established a claim, begin to work with them. That's what the terminology ``early intervention'' was intended to refer to.

Mrs. Brown: With respect to the claim.

Ms Smith: Yes.

Mrs. Brown: That's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1625

The Chairman: Are there questions on the Liberal side?

There are no questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Given that I am the person who insisted the most the other day, I think I deserved a longer time. In any event I should try to be brief.

Forgetting the amounts involved and looking simply at the number of claimants penalized for fraud, you can see that there is a decrease. It dropped from 130,000 to 116,000. Therefore, there is a downward trend.

The other day, the Minister said that it was frightening - he discovered that - and that this serious problem had to be addressed.

My riding has two employment centres. I have read the annual reports of the past two years and I realized that there was an enormous difference between these two centres.

I have tried to obtain explanations from the people working in them. In the case of one of the centres, some new officials from a different region came to work. They ended up there, but not necessarily in the same positions.

It should be kept in mind that there have been cuts to the public service this year. This Department was one of the ten targeted. Therefore, it had to downsize.

The people I met told me that that was the reason for the difference between the two offices. I subsequently met many people, and there were all sorts of rumours going around. According to one official whom I consulted there were more cheats in Quebec than elsewhere. I asked him if he had any figures. He answered: "Well, I can't give you any".

I would like to take this opportunity today to ask you for a breakdown of the figures by province. Such information must exist, and I would like to have it. It seems that the figures vary according to areas of work.

I have seen documents on the impact by industrial sector. I would like to know which sector has the largest number of cheats. It would be very interesting.

Given that we have fewer officials and that there will be more cuts over the next two years, how can you investigate further with reduced staff?

I am trying to understand this streamlining process, and the two employment centres I consulted told me that it is all closely connected, that the impact could be heightened by the shortage of investigators.

Like Mme Lalonde, I am also contacted by many people in my riding. When there are not enough investigators, then fraudulent claims are discovered only some five years later.

Therefore, there are some people who cheat and others who make mistakes, but when it takes five years to find them, that causes major problems.

It's all well and good to say that there were overpayments of $272 million, but how much of that money was in fact paid back? In the case of some people the amount may be double or triple, and if you cannot catch them during the first year, some of them will be unable to pay.

It's fine to say that some people have been caught, but if they cannot pay, this is of no use to the government. The figures may look very impressive, but what proportion of that amount of $272 million will be recovered by the government?

[English]

Ms Smith: I'll start on your list, and if I leave anything out...

First of all, we will get you more detailed breakdowns. We can do it by province. I don't know if we can do it by industry. I don't believe we can.

Mr. Stewart: No, we've never kept track of the results of investigations by industry or industrial sector.

.1630

Ms Smith: But we can give you at least some of this information by province, and we'll get that to you.

In looking at it, though, one thing to keep in mind is that you'll be receiving statistics relative to frauds detected. They don't say anything about the underlying levels of fraud, so I don't think it would be appropriate to suggest that because in one province or another we are more effective at detecting fraud, that says anything about the underlying incidence of fraud within the claimant population in that part of the country.

On this question of fraud detection, I mentioned earlier that as computer systems and databases become more sophisticated, it is possible to become more efficient at detecting fraud, and that is one of the ways that over the next few years we anticipate being able to contribute to the savings shortfalls that would otherwise exist under this bill. We'll be able to do that without more investigators because we'll be doing it through smarter systems work rather than with more people.

The number of people dedicated to the investigation and control area has not been affected by the downsizing efforts within the department, and in fact we recently had our resources for this activity firmed up on a long-term basis by Treasury Board. It's not an increase in our resources, but we do have a stable resource base there.

Finally, with respect to ability to pay, there are extensive mechanisms within our procedures to ensure that we negotiate a payment schedule with a claimant that conforms with their ability to pay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: This is the first time I have spoken about active measures.

[English]

The Chairman: You've given us an overview of this, right?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but we haven't asked any questions about that.

[English]

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): I'm sure that when we get to clause-by-clause we will be revisiting this document. I assume there will be time for the opposition members to ask relevant questions when we get to those clauses. I suspect they're going to ask the same questions again. We could get to that.

The Chairman: I think you have raised an interesting point. Perhaps you could ask the questions when we get to those clauses.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: The reason why we have these figures before us is that the Minister promised to comply with the fiscal parameters of the Minister of Finance. Given that the amendments submitted by our colleagues opposite will entail costs, we ask the question: Where will you get this money? The answer given was: Through detection of fraud and speeding up the return to work. There are questions you have to ask about these measures.

We really have to question whether the money to be gained by speeding up the return to work can in fact be accounted for, when we have some idea of what is meant by employability measures and all the other measures being implemented, particularly as the amounts available will be approximately $800 million and the demand will be very high.

.1635

[English]

Ms Smith: There's a considerable amount of work under way within the department to address exactly the question you are raising, and it's one the Treasury Board Secretariat is also very interested in.

The work that needs to be done in order to provide the benchmarks and identify the accountability measures and the performance measures that would be able to document that is under way as we speak. It is the type of information that would be the core of the monitoring reports referred to in clause 3 of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I just want to point out that the OECD informs us that in every country in the world, except in the case of Denmark, improving employability has no effect on the number of jobs or total payroll. It simply increases the number of people available for the same market.

In the medium term, the impact could be a drop in salaries because there would be more people available. Would you not agree that there are no other example anywhere else in the world? If you have any, please tell me where that works?

I'm not saying that enhancing someone's employability is bad in itself. I'm not saying that at all. But when you want to increase employability so as to economize - and that is what the head of the OECD himself told me - this is proven to be a failure almost everywhere.

These were the findings from the Summit recently held in Lille, France. Isn't this really a dead-end street

[English]

Ms Smith: We have evaluation results that document a number of the employment interventions we've undertaken as a department that require, indeed, returns to that investment in people's employability. This can be measured in terms of their reduced time on unemployment insurance, their reduced time on social assistance, their increased wage rates or their increased length of time employed.

I was under the impression that information had already been made available to the committee, but I can check on that and ensure that those evaluation studies are available for the committee.

I have a more general comment. As I mentioned at the outset of this, it doesn't take an awful lot to save what are quite considerable sums in insurance benefit payments. A day or two can amount to $100 million or $200 million.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: People need work, not employability.

[English]

Ms Smith: Generally speaking, when organizations such as the OECD undertake these sorts of studies, they're looking for impacts that are much larger than that. They're looking for weeks, months or years of employment. Here, as I say, a day or two can make a huge amount of difference in terms of the level of pay-outs under the program.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to the clause-by-clause component.

Consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

May I report the bill to the House? Just kidding.

We'll move to clause 2.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We cannot ask questions about...

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, yes, we can ask questions on practically all of them.

.1640

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Why do you call that employment insurance? There will not be any insurance when there is employment.

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification. We are moving immediately to clause 2. Does that mean that clause 1 will be adopted only at the end, in view of the debate, it could be concluded that this legislation deals with unemployment insurance rather than employment insurance? Clause 1 will be examined again at the end and maybe amended just like all the other clauses. Is that the case?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, it's just that's the way it's...

On clause 2 - Definitions

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: No, just a minute. I have some serious questions on that subject.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me.

Mr. Nault: When we get to the questions, do you think we could move the amendment to clause 2?

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Do you have an amendment on the definition of "affidavit"?

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. Are there any amendments to clause 2?

Mr. Nault: Yes.

The Chairman: Who's moving the amendment? Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we'll start with G-1, the government amendment. It's clause 2, page 3.

Mrs. Brown: Did we pass clause 1 already?

The Chairman: No. That's been postponed

[Translation]

Ms Brown: At the end. I'm sorry.

[English]

The Chairman: It's not a problem.

Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 2 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 23 on page 3 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: On line 25, page 2.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any questions on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: One moment please, we will try and find exactly where we are there.

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I have questions about "affidavit". Could I come back to that later? I would like to come back to that.

Mr. Crête: We can look at the government's amendments, but we want to be sure that we will be able to...

[English]

The Chairman: We'll come back to that. Let's deal with this first.

Mr. Nault: That's the first amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The second amendment, of course, is that the English version of clause 2, Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 25 on page 2 and substituting the following -

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, we have to deal with the first amendment you proposed.

Mr. Nault: Well, I moved it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, and are there any comments?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Can he give the reasons for his amendment?

Mr. Crête: We would like to be able to properly understand the debate.

[English]

It includes that in...

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Why has this amendment been introduced?

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have an explanation of your amendments?

Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the subject is the definition of regular benefits. The reason for the change is that fishermen's benefits are payable under part VIII and mention of this was omitted from the definition of regular benefits. All provisions of the act and regulations apply to self-employed fishers unless the provisions are modified by regulations made pursuant to part VIII. Consequently the definition should be broadened to cover self-employed fishers. That's the rationale for the amendment.

.1645

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Are we in fact on clause 2 of the bill? It is moved that clause 2 be amended by striking out line 23 on page 3 and substituting the following:

The definition of ``benefits'' is being replaced. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain to us exactly the reason for this change? I think that the words underlined are the ones which are new.

Previously, the legislation stated that ``regular benefits'' doesn't include benefits or special benefits by virtue of section 24 or 25 whereas it states now ``benefits payable under Part I and Part VIII, but does not include special...'' Is that the change? What does it mean? What are the implications of this change? We could ask our experts to answer.

[English]

Ms Smith: It just clarifies the fact that the regular benefits include fishing benefits. There was an error. They left out the fact that fishing benefits were included in that definition.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, it means that in the initial version, they had failed to take into account the fact that people in the fishing industry continue to receive regular benefits under their own system. Did that have any impact on the way benefits were assessed for fishermen? Is there no link?

[English]

Ms Smith: No, it's just a definition so that it's easier in other areas of the act to refer to classes of benefits by using the terminology ``regular benefits'' without having to spell it out in detail every time we come across the concept. It's simply definitional.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Does the definition of ``regular benefits'' exclude employment benefits?

[English]

Ms Smith: Yes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: It includes them?

[English]

Ms Smith: No, it excludes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I don't know if you are aware of all the confusion that will cause, because in French someone who receives ``prestations or benefits'' is a ``prestataire or claimant''. The legislation talks about employment benefits, but the people eligible for such benefits are not, according to your definition, claimants or are not eligible for benefits as such but rather for employment benefits. This creates terrible confusion in French.

Mr. Crête: I have just understood. Employment benefits are intended for someone who does not receive unemployment insurance benefits; he receives a benefit for a particular reason, and the regular claimant is eligible for unemployment insurance.

Mr. Leduc: The problem has been identified, if in fact there is such a problem. In the French version of Part II, they talk about ``prestations d'emploi'' or employment benefits, a term which covers two things, the amounts of money paid and also the services provided.

Mrs. Lalonde: Someone receiving an employment benefit is not a beneficiary, because he does not have the same rights as a person receiving unemployment insurance?

Mr. Leduc: Some are covered by Part II - and we'll explain that when we come to Part II, with which unfortunately I am not so familiar - and those people will receive employment benefits and also insurance benefits, which are referred to as ``regular benefits''. Therefore, it is beneficiaries subject to Part II who receive employment benefits.

.1650

Mr. Crête: As you will appreciate, we are considering the clause dealing with definitions and we must understand the definitions in order to be able to understand the legislation as a whole. We could not go through the section dealing with definitions without considering all possible situations. If clause 2 is adopted and we then realize that we made a mistake - perhaps a completely honest mistake - , it will then be too late. Therefore, we have to look at the situation as a whole immediately.

The problem raised by Mrs. Lalonde will be experienced in practical terms. That should be explained in our communities, in our villages. Someone may realize that he or she has not used the right term and indeed being accused of cheating. That person will not be very happy.

Could that clause not be handled differently so as to make it clearer in French and avoid any confusion? You said that you examined the situation. Have you considered other possibilities? Did you think about using other terms so as to resolve the problem?

Mr. Leduc: I did not work on that part and I am not very familiar with it. The witnesses appearing a little later this afternoon will be able to answer your question.

I can just say that I don't think there is any confusion. Clause 2 defines the term ``claimant''. A ``claimant'' means a person who applies or has applied for benefits under this Act.

What are benefits? They mean unemployment benefits payable under Part I. Therefore, a claimant is someone who applies for benefits under Part I. The employment benefit is not included in the definition. Therefore, in clause 2, we know immediately what we have to deal with. The term ``employment benefits'' is defined immediately afterwards. It means benefits established under section 59. Subsequently, there is a definition of ``regular benefits'' and ``special benefits''.

Mr. Crête: In real life, someone coming to an employment centre will be asked if he or she is receiving employment benefits. The people enforcing the legislation will probably have to follow courses, and the person coming to the centre will be asked: ``Do you get employment benefits?''. He or she will answer yes, that they receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The terms used must correspond to something, and people have to be able to understand them. Otherwise, the government official will always be right. The use of quite complex terminology sometimes allows the government official to be right. As legislators, this is perhaps something we should avoid.

[English]

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the discussion and I think Madame Lalonde and Mr. Crête make a lot of sense with respect to the French word.

In English we don't have that problem, because we use the word ``claimant'' and then we use the words ``employment benefit'' and ``regular benefit'', but in French they use the word prestataire instead of ``claimant''. And if you look at the definition, for prestataire it would give the impression they have the right to prestations d'emploi et prestations régulières.

I recommend that we proceed with the amendments that have been tabled but that you stand the entire clause 2 for a day or so, maybe even until this evening. They can come up with a better way of doing it, because it is confusing in French.

It says:

[Translation]

.1655

[English]

That gives the impression that they could be a prestataire for either employment benefits or regular benefits. As I said, in English we use different words; we use ``claimant'' and ``benefit''. I think I understand the problem, and they make a good point. The French words are not as clear as the English words.

Mrs. Brown: I would really appreciate some clarification as well with respect to the semantics in the language. On page 9 we talk about unemployment benefits for an insured person. I assume that means that those are regular benefits that would be payable under this new EI Act. But on page 114, you're talking about employment insurance given to persons engaged in fishing, and this indeed is not a regular benefit but a special case. I'm not quite certain why you're trying to take away what in my view is a very specific difference.

You want everything to be the same when, in my view, employment insurance is for persons engaged in fishing and indeed is not a regular benefit but a special case. In terms of this act, I understand unemployment benefits as regular benefits, so I'm not quite clear on why you're trying to make that distinction.

Ms Smith: If I understand correctly, fishing benefits are benefits that are received with respect to insured employment, as are regular benefits. The definition that was part of the motion was meant to clarify that the notion of regular benefits, which is terminology that has been in usage within the UI program for decades, deals with your benefits received pursuant to your insured employment.

Mrs. Brown: Yes, I understand that, but when we first saw this bill many months ago, the department and the ministry brought in a whole notion of income support. In my view - and this is just an expression from one person - income support is not a regular benefit, nor should it be defined as such. That's why employment insurance is something that's different from a regular benefit. It's income support.

Ideologically, I don't understand at all your rationale for bringing in a change like that. Actually, you've brought in a different component of welfare and social assistance in the definition that you've given to employment insurance for fishers.

Ms Smith: We haven't changed the definition at all for fishers. That's where I'm getting a bit confused.

Mrs. Brown: But you're providing income support. Are you saying that income support, social assistance, is really your definition now of a regular benefit?

Ms Smith: No. The fishermen's regime would be comparable in scope and design with the insurance provisions that would apply to all workers who are covered under this act, so they would be receiving insurance against their insured employment.

Mrs. Brown: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. McFee.

Mr. Gordon McFee (Acting Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): I just want to make sure about something. Definition sections are usually a little difficult to fathom, and I'd like to step back and explain what the purpose is of that definition. It really is no more than that.

What has happened in section 2 is that there are several definitions of ``benefits''. They are broken down more than they were before, so that whereas definitions in the past were somewhat cryptic, an attempt has been made to clarify them. There is a definition of regular benefits, there is a definition of special benefits, and there is a definition of employment benefits. I'm only speaking for the English part of it. Those things are all there.

.1700

In an examination of this clause as it is now in the bill, before amendment, it was noticed that one kind of benefits was not included in the definition of regular benefits. Really, the clause is doing nothing more than delineating the different kinds of benefits.

The kind of benefits that was not included in the definition of regular benefits, but should have been according to drafting advice, was fishing benefits in part VIII. So really the amendment here of regular benefits does nothing more than include that item that was inadvertently left out. Without understating it or overstating it, it's a bookkeeping change.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, followed by Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Allmand: I just wanted to say I think we can pass this amendment, because what it does is cover fishermen's benefits without harming in any way the point raised by the Bloc Québécois and the word prestataires. Personally, I think we could pass this amendment and then we could return to the point and look for some solution to the problem they raised. We don't foreclose dealing with their problem by passing this, in my view.

The Chairman: Okay. Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: A little later in Part I, clause 6 refers to ``minor attachment claimants'' and ``major attachment claimants''. I would like to come back to the definition of a ``claimant'':

Frankly, I think that there is a serious problem here. The main problem is one of substance. According to Part II, there are people who are not eligible for employment insurance or can apply for employment benefits. There is really a problem here. That is putting it mildly. In any event, in you own interests, I would strongly suggest that you look into that.

Mr. Crête: I support Mrs. Lalonde's position on that. I think that the problem of the French must be resolved before the amendment proposed can be adopted. Even if it is stated that it is only a problem of French, the rest will be adopted accordingly. We have to be sure that the term corresponds to something. I have other comments on other definitions.

Mrs. Lalonde: I began with the first definition, ``affidavit''.

Mr. Crête: I wanted that to be my first question. How do we operate with that amendment? No answer was given to the questions regarding language. You can always say that you want the definition to be adopted as it appears in your amendment, but there will be a major problem there.

If you adopt that, you will have to live with it after. In three and a half months, someone will challenge that in court and it will cost $100,000 to study and investigate the problem. Therefore, it is preferable to solve the problem in committee rather than waiting for a major incident to occur, because that is one of the terms people will use every day. All unemployment insurance claimants will have to deal with that definition.

Could we not ask an expert in the French language or a legislative counsel to come up with a resolution acceptable to everyone. First, we have not finished with clause 2. Perhaps we will not be able to deal with that in a minute or two. We may have the time to consult someone who will be able to give us both a language opinion and also a legal opinion.

Mr. Dubé: Agencies dealing with employability use the term ``allowances''. Do allowances and employment benefits mean the same thing? Are they exactly the same thing?

.1705

Why has the definition been changed? Why not take the word ``allowance'', since that is the term in practical use and understood by many people? Why not use that term? What is the problem in using the term ``allowances''?

[English]

Ms Smith: There are many different types of employment benefits for which the terminology ``allowance'' would not seem to fit very well. For example, in the idea of providing an employment subsidy, the terminology ``allowance'' wouldn't work very well. The search was on for a word that was more generic and a word that would come up with some terminology that would, as my colleague was explaining, parse all the different types of benefits that someone can receive under the act into three groups and to use some comparable terminology there.

Perhaps we could undertake, while the committee is at your vote a little later on this evening, to caucus to find some alternative wording we could bring back to the committee at that time.

The Chairman: I have a suggestion here, if the chair can in fact make suggestions. It looks as though we have some work to do on this particular issue. Would you agree that this particular amendment and clause stand?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: And then we'll get back to it afterwards.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Allmand has mentioned, the amendment in itself has no effect on the definition, all it does is suggest that fisher people are part of the issue. I do agree we that should stand down clause 2. It's just the amendment; there's no sense in delaying the amendment. The amendment just clarifies that fisher people are part of regular benefits. It's pretty clear in English, at least, that this is the intent. But I think we should stand down.

The intent of the government will be to make sure the French drafter will be here from now on to help us with our affairs, obviously, simply because if we're going to be asked for French explanations at every turn, we might as well have the people who drafted the bill in French to be here to deal with it. We'll do that as quickly and as soon as we can. The undertaking Ms Smith has given us is obviously the correct one. We will endeavour to find another word if that's the case.

The Chairman: Has the parliamentary secretary helped you at all, Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have a serious problem with the word ``allowance''. I understood that legislation was formulated in English and then translated. That is not at all consistent with the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

According to the Official Languages Act, in the Parliament of Canada both languages are equal. If this is no longer the case, please tell me because that means that the ground rules have been considerably changed. I am told that an expert will translate the term and that steps will be taken to make sure that such an expert is available in the future. I thought we had resolved that kind of problem some 20 years ago.

The French version of the Act has the same legal value as the English version, and it is important that the French wording be correct, consistent and viable.

We state that there will be problems if the wording is left unchanged. This is not just a whim on our part. This is not a little problem. It is an important point and the principle must be respected. The clauses we are asked to adopt must have the same legal value in both languages. It is not adequate to adopt the English version and then have it translated into French.

[English]

The Chairman: I think the point has been made.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, they won't take your undertaking, so we'll just get on with the vote then. I asked if they would take the undertaking of the government to have this clarified. They obviously don't want to, so let's get on with the vote. We'll just carry on. You can't have it both ways. You give an undertaking and he gives me a five-minute lecture about the French language, which I know very well. What I want to know is does he accept the undertaking of the government or not?

Mr. Allmand: To stand the clause.

The Chairman: Okay, stand the clause. That's what I asked for. Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would like Mr. Nault to be fully aware of what my colleague, Mr. Crête, has just said.

.1710

I know that my colleague opposite is on the government's side, but Mr. Chairman, I think that you understand the situation well. Both languages must be treated equally. Once again, this illustrates the difference that exists in our country. The fact that there are two languages causes difficulties. I would like to support Mr. Crête's position about that. We can't adopt something we don't understand.

[English]

The Chairman: The point about the French language has been raised. It's an important one. I think Mr. Nault has also in his way tried to address that particular issue.

Now we're at the point where I'm going to ask the question. Shall amendment G-1 carry?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I'm sorry. The meaning is still not clear. You refer to regular benefits.

[English]

Regular benefits means benefits payable under part I and part VIII, but does not include special.

[Translation]

In French, you refer to ``prestations régulières'':

[English]

Ms Smith: If you refer back to the bill, it's simply because of the length of the lines. There's the striking out of a line and there are more words in one language than in the other.

Refer to page 3. In the English, the line that's been excluded ends with the word ``special''. It will be exactly the same in both languages; it's just a question of the way the bill has been printed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: You say that once it's adopted in English, it will be translated into French, is that right?

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mrs. Lalonde: Usually, I'm a quick study, but it's early. I'm sorry.

[English]

Ms Smith: The motion in English says to strike line 23, and that line ends with the word ``special''. The motion in French says to strike lines 11 through 13. Therefore you're seeing the entire definition in the French version of the motion and you're only seeing one line of the definition in the English version of the motion.

The Chairman: That clarifies that point, right, Madame Lalonde?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: No, I'm sorry, but I don't see that and it's not bad faith.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Smith, could you perhaps explain to Madame Lalonde exactly which lines you're referring to?

Ms Smith: In French, amendment G-1 refers to striking lines 11 through 13, so that would be striking the entire definition for prestations régulières. The wording of the motion then goes on to provide the complete definition in French.

By contrast, the English amendment only required the striking of the first line of the definition, so if you turn to the left-hand side of the page in the bill, we're striking line 23, which reads:

.1715

The Chairman: Is everyone satisfied with that? Are we ready for the question?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: The point raised by Mr. Allmand was in reference to the word ``prestation'' and ``prestataire''.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: We agreed that having passed this amendment to just this one part, we will stand all of clause 2. When we go to the vote, maybe in consultation with their expert on translation in French, they will come up with a better... We are not going to agree now to clause 2, if I understand correctly. We're standing it.

The Chairman: We are agreeing to the amendment. The amendment has been passed, but now the clause will stand. Is that correct?

Mr. Allmand: Yes.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, though -

The Chairman: Just one second. Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I have several questions on the definition in clause 2. I've been in contact with lawyers who work with the unemployed or people who use unemployment insurance. I would like to know why you added ``affidavit''. We've learned about this through your clause by clause consideration.

This is really disturbing for people who help ordinary citizens in their dealings with the commission. Quite often, a citizen goes to see an officer and makes a statement. He may not understand this very well, he is nervous, and when he goes to appeal, he gets help from someone who assist him in directly establishing what he wanted to say. We often encounter situations like that, and some of them are quite dramatic. I was made aware of one last week. When I see ``affidavit'', I'm very worried, because I fear that in the employment centres with a definition you give here, that is:

The people I discussed this with were very worried. To my mind, this shouldn't be there.

Mr. Leduc: I will explain why the definition has been included.

We've been working on these amendments for close to a year. This major overall represents an enormous task for us. I say this because together with the legislative drafters from the Department of Justice, we've had to examine a piece of legislation that we tried to modernize somewhat. We tried to eliminate overlap, among other things with regard to affidavit. The expression ``affidavit'' is currently in the legislation. I can give you an example that I found in the old legislation.

.1720

The Unemployment Insurance Act refers to an affidavit taken by a official of the commission, taken by a public servant within the commission, and it also refers to the person who can take the affidavit.

Rather than repeat the sentences that could be found in seven or eight places, in clause 2 of the bill, why not include it in a single definition.

The expression ``affidavit'' was not added anywhere. We simply made the legislation more concise by deleting two or three sentences that were repeated in seven or eight places and placing them all in clause 2.

Mrs. Lalonde: You may understand that for ordinary people who may be nervous before an officer, it's extremely troubling to have to carve in stone a statement that may be used against you at a later date.

Mr. Leduc: We don't need an affidavit to do that. Right now, nearly all level 2 officers have the powers of a commissioner to receive statutory statements. When people go to a Canada Employment Centre and make a statement, it is implicit that they are there to tell the truth.

Mrs. Lalonde: It's not a matter of people not wanting to tell the truth. They're nervous and they don't understand the meaning of the words. People who go to an employment centre don't all have a university degree.

Mr. Crête: You've answered the question in part, but I would like you to clarify this. In the definition, you say:

Mr. Leduc: I can tell you about the old Employment and Immigration Commission Act. One specific provision of it is reiterated in Bill C-12, and states that the Unemployment Insurance Commission can authorize specific persons to take affidavits for unemployment insurance purposes. These are commissioners of oaths. These are tasks that are assigned to certain persons right now.

Mr. Crête: Therefore, it is easy to understand the effect of including this definition in the legislation. As long as it is not included, the general notion of ``affidavit'' is influenced by all kinds of other legislation. It's a definition.

An affidavit is a very formal legal document which according to current practice, means that a person in a given situation can easily react by saying that he will go to see a lawyer, that he would organize his affairs in accordance with a broader definition of affidavit that is generally used in our legal system.

However, the very fact of including this in a piece of legislation gives it a definition and makes it an internal procedure.

Does this mean that the definition of ``affidavit'' included in this legislation will supersede the general definition of ``affidavit''? What meaning are we trying to ascribe to it when we say in the French version: ``ou une autre personne autorisée à recevoir les affidavits''? Why not say ``recevoir des affidavits''? When you say ``dit recevoir les'' you are qualifying these affidavits. It means those that are made for the purposes of the department. It does not necessarily refer to any kind of affidavit.

.1725

Mr. Leduc: All the affidavits mentioned in the legislation to which the definition applies are to be filled out by departmental officials and not by claimants.

Mr. Crête: Then that means that your definition of ``affidavit'' is made in reference to your form; it could even mean that the department will exclude or compare affidavits on the same subject which may be prepared by...

Let's say I'm a claimant with a problem. I go to you and you have me sign an affidavit. On my own initiative, I have one prepared by my lawyer. The official tells me that in his department, it's the form and the affidavit defined under the legislation that are acceptable, and not the other one. This will lead to a serious problem.

Mr. Leduc: It's not the type of definition that can create that kind of problem. Most people know what an affidavit is. We're talking about a commissioner of oaths and other authorized persons. Commissioners of oaths know the form, but here, or at the client department, there is no form.

Mr. Crête: I bet you that as soon as the definition is adopted, there will be a form within a year.

Mr. Leduc: We're talking here about the affidavit that the official has sworn under oath for very specific purposes. It's generally for criminal prosecution or civil suits. These are also the affidavits signed by Revenue Canada officials.

[English]

Clause 2 allowed to stand

The Chairman: This is the way we're going to operate from now on: we're going to have some general comments on both sides, then we will have time for some specific questions, and then we will go to the vote.

I've heard comments back and forth, and they're more or less always the same ones being repeated. I'm wondering how many times the same point is going to be made before we move forward. I said it this morning, and I'm going to repeat it today, that I'm keeping my ears open to what both the officials and the questioners are saying. At any point where there is repetition that I think is unwarranted, then I'm going to intervene.

I think I've heard the same points a few times already, to be fair. We are dealing with clauses we've already addressed and I don't understand why we're continually asked the same questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: There was no repetitive element in our work on the definition. We checked its potential effect. That led us to discover that it referred only to departmental forms and we were even told that it was for purposes of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits.

These are very relevant elements which would very clearly indicate the importance of the document if they were added to the definition.

I don't have the impression at all that I've been opposing this for the sake of opposition. It's a very significant element. It is not repetitive. I know that if we repeated the same idea ad nauseam, Mr. Chairman, you would have the right to tell us that it's not acceptable.

In the current situation with regard to the affidavit, it would be relevant that we be told why the objective of the affidavit is not included in the definition. To my mind, that's a significant element. It's a legal document that will be used and defined differently in the legislation.

Since this is the clause on definitions, I feel that we should go through all the questions that we may have on definitions so that during the clause-by-clause consideration, we are in a position to say whether we are ready to adopt all the clauses in accordance with the corrections or adjustments that have been made; otherwise, a significant portion of our work will have been omitted.

I have questions on at least four or five other definitions. For example, there's the issue of the week and that of the documents. These are things we see daily in our offices. What is acceptable as a document and what isn't? We must do constructive work as parliamentarians on these matters.

.1730

We certainly have to be able to see the situation as a whole before adopting such an important clause.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: Well, we've stood this clause. I think it would be in order for Mr. Crête, either by himself or by discussing with the officials possible amendments to the definition of ``affidavit''...when we return to the clause, the government might suggest an amendment to satisfy his complaint or he may table an amendment. I think we've discussed it long enough.

The Chairman: I think so too. That's the advice I'm going to follow. I think it's fair and it's just.

Is this on the same point?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We asked that someone indicate where this expression could be found in former legislation. They're telling us that there is no change in meaning between what exists currently and what we see before us now. For years now, I've been working with lawyers and experts in unemployment insurance and they tell me they feel it does make a difference. That's why I was asking you whether it was possible to get the bill on computer. It would have enabled us to do some research on the word ``affidavit'' and to find the actual meaning for each occurrence.

Perhaps the intention of the members opposite has changed. This is the first time since this bill was tabled that we've had an opportunity to talk to one another as members in the Commons. Up until now, we've heard officials. Today, we have an opportunity to try to get answers and influence you. We can say what we think, because we represent a lot of people. We don't intend to just sit back and let you do what you want. Let us pause for a moment because I would like to know what this gentleman was proposing when he said that they had been working on these amendments for a year and this is a kind of overhaul of the bill which, once again, will affect the lives of millions of people.

We have to take the time to ensure that these are truly the government's intentions.

[English]

The Chairman: How does the recommendation made by Mr. Allmand negate what you are saying?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I want to see the wording of the current legislation where it refers to ``affidavit''. I want to make sure that the definition included there does not change anything. I'm not questioning their truthfulness, but let's just say that my responsibility requires that I get this information.

My comments are simply to indicate that we will not let ourselves be rushed. We understand you're in a hurry but try to understand our responsibility and your own as well, because you are members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Whatever problems there are, including the definitions, are things that you're going to write into law.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Lalonde, nobody is trying to push anybody around here.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: The point here is that we need to address some of the concerns that were raised earlier about meanings and the issue of language. Mr. Allmand precisely stated that there could be an opportunity for members of the Bloc with these concerns to iron out those differences with departmental officials. Then when we come back to the clause, we can make some changes if in fact the changes need to be made. I think that's fair and reasonable.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, that's all I asked for. He offered to indicate the references to ``affidavit'' in the legislation. That's what I want to be able to evaluate.

.1735

Mr. Leduc: It's not difficult, because it's just a computer query. I can do that for you.

[English]

The Chairman: Is that okay with you now?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, and then I will be in a position to know whether there would be a suitable amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, so that's all sorted out.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to react to Mr. Allmand's proposal. It is my understanding that we are currently raising a number of questions on clause 2. We will let clause 2 stand and we can also note the things that have been stood.

First of all, there's the definition of ``employment benefits'' in French. With regard to affidavit, there are questions that could be added through the list we will have, and we also have to know whether there should be additions in the definition regarding the purposes of the affidavit.

We could continue in this vein on this clause by seeing where there could be problems. When we've gone over it all, we will see whether we're prepared to adopt the clause. We have to review the definitions before adopting clause 2. Therefore, let's take the questions and the matters that have been stood and let's obtain the information. When we have it, we can adopt the clause.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're agreeing with what we're going to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If we agree on what I just said and if we understand the same thing, all the better. That means that we will have other questions on other definitions before we adopt the clause.

[English]

The Chairman: And you can deal with the officials in the meantime to iron out any linguistic challenges.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have other questions on other definitions.

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I asked for the floor earlier.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I heard the answers and I followed the exchange. Mr. Leduc said at the beginning that this didn't change anything, but it was to avoid repetitiveness in the wording. If it doesn't change anything and to be sure it doesn't change anything, the simplest solution would be not to include it.

Mr. Leduc: It's a clause; if we don't have ``affidavit'', we don't have a definition. We're trying to figure out if this affidavit is one within the meaning of the Interpretation Act. Who can take the affidavit? I think it would be simpler to include here a brief definition of those who can take the affidavit for the purposes of the legislation. We simply repeated what is currently in the law.

Mrs. Lalonde: Your argument leads me to believe that, on the contrary, something's being added here. When defending people who have problems, if lawyers are able to invoke the fact that there was an affidavit, but that the statement made before an official is not included in the affidavit, it's extremely important to know what the law says. That's why you will bring me what the law contains. And then we will be in a position to determine whether, in our judgement, this changes anything or not. Thank you.

Mr. Crête: I have another question on another definition in clause 2.

It defines ``labour dispute'' as follows:

.1740

Let's take the example for someone fired for union practices. There may be only one person who takes steps concerning a union practice, but it still becomes a labour dispute because it's related to the right to unionize.

I find this definition dangerous because it eliminates a person who might be fired for any reason whatsoever and who could never invoke the fact that this is the result of a labour dispute because only one person was affected by the situation.

When that person goes before an arbitration committee or other stages, he or she will be told that the complaint is out of order because it only concerns one person, while the definition should cover conflicts between employer and employee that only concern one person. When employees decide collectively to defend one person, it's a labour dispute even if it only concerns that one person.

Mr. Leduc: We did not change the definition in any way, and to my knowledge, the hypothetical situation you've just described did not come up in the precedents.

Mr. Crête: You haven't encountered any difficulty whatsoever in a situation like that.

Mr. Leduc: With regard to a single employee who has a dispute...

Mr. Crête: What kind of problems have you encountered with this definition?

An hon. member: No problem.

Mr. Crête: No problem.

Mr. Guy Grenon (Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Development, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): Not since 1940, since this definition has existed for the purposes of section 31 of the Act.

Mr. Crête: It is also my understanding that the definition corresponds to old ways of seeing the issue of disputes. However, with regard to unemployment insurance, it does answer my question: you have not encountered any difficulties.

I have another definition.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to clarify a few things here. We've allowed this clause to stand. Some arrangements will be struck where you'll be talking to officials to try to iron out some of the concerns.

I'm letting you speak at length tonight to ask questions because I think they're valid questions. But don't for one second think that when this clause comes back, we're going to repeat this. We're not going to be debating it again. I hope we're all clear on that. You're doing your debate tonight. Once a clause is allowed to stand, let's move to the next one. I think that would be the proper procedure.

So don't expect that when it comes back I'm going to allow it again, because I won't.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If we arrive at a different definition of an affidavit, for example, or different words for ``employment benefits'', this will certainly give rise to a debate.

It is possible there won't be one. It's possible that the majority of members of parliament will agree with the definition that we've arrived at here, but if we propose an amendment in this regard, it will have to be deemed in order and debated.

[English]

The Chairman: Then the question and everything you are asking tonight is redundant because you are going to be reworking and rewording it. It has to come back, and if we are going to debate it again...

I want this process to be as fair and as efficient as possible, so I'm going to require your help with this. If we're going to stay on one clause, a portion of an amendment or a definition for an entire night, the unfortunate reality is that we won't have the time.

Since we have set up this process where you are going to be working with officials, perhaps you can use that time to address some of these issues. The questions are fair and in order. There's no problem with them. It's just a question of how you want to operate. Do you want to stay in the same place for -

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Clause 2 which deals with definitions has taken up a large part of our time because this will condition everything that is in the legislation.

.1745

If we make an error in the definition and that definition is adopted, we'll have a problem somewhere in the act. Definitions are a bit like plumbing: everything's related. When we have ``claimant'', ``benefits'', ``employment benefits'', ``regular benefits'', ``special benefits'', there has to be some continuity in the links between all these things. I agree with you on one thing. The day we start to ramble on and come back to the same point all the time, you just tell us and the message will be received and understood. But up until now, we've asked questions about various definitions.

I've received very good information on the question of ``labour disputes''. I've noted this and I will accept it. But there are other definitions which require explanations. This requires a lot of patience on our part. When we've reviewed all these things, we can come back to formal issues.

[English]

The Chairman: Patience is not going to be a problem.

Mr. Crête: I know.

The Chairman: But due process and fairness - we have to figure it out early on. It's our first night doing clause-by-clause and everybody's getting used to the system, but I want to make something very clear. When we stand a clause, we normally go to the next clause. I've allowed us latitude, but I hope you don't abuse it.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: What you're saying is important. Clause 2 has been stood and others might be later, because the same situation could occur. Like everyone else, I'm learning to discipline myself. The opposition could limit itself to points of clarification on the reasons, the content, etc. But as my colleague Mr. Crête has said, it seems to me essential to weigh the pros and cons of the arguments, if not make corrections, clarifications or changes. We have to agree on this. We have to accept that we are asking questions for clarification purposes. Afterwards, there's that whole part about the increases. We'll get back to that once we've got the information or the corrections we've asked for.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Terrana.

Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I have a question. Under ``minister'' you say ``Minister of Employment and Immigration'', but it does not exist any more.

An hon. member: We haven't passed that bill yet.

Mrs. Terrana: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The bill has not yet been adopted; we'll have to change that once the bill is passed.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Is everybody happy with this clause? Can we move forward? Are there more questions?

Mr. Dubé: Didn't we decide that the clause would stand? Why are we still on this?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: There are many questions that arise about this clause. I understood that we were asking our questions about various elements. As the need arises, we will discuss this with the officials who are here, and then we can come back with our own proposals.

Mr. Dubé: And at that point, we'll present our arguments.

Mrs. Lalonde: Otherwise, this doesn't make sense. Up until now, we've never had an opportunity to ask questions about that.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't know about the other members - Mr. Allmand has a longer standing here than I do, of course, but I've been around for a couple of terms now - but it's very unusual to carry on a debate for hours on a clause where the opposition has no amendment. To suggest that since this bill came out in December with these particular definitions, the opposition has not had time to contact the officials and ask them what they think the problem is - I find that a little hard to understand.

What is being suggested by the opposition, whether or not they have an amendment - at this point they have none - to deal with this bill... I suspect they will probably do it at report stage.

.1750

Having said that, does this mean we are going to first of all have them ask questions on every single clause? They obviously must not have a great amount of problem with them because they have no amendments. Secondly, how long do you expect us to sit here and listen to questions by the opposition on things they could have asked since when this bill was first announced in December, on things that they could have asked of the officials who were available and who could have and briefed them whenever they so wished?

In the conversations you will have with the opposition, I think we should make a decision tonight to limit this discussion to a reasonable amount of time, or we're going to be here forever. Never mind four days, we'll be here for two years if we keep this up. I've never seen anything like it.

If the opposition has a problem, why don't they have an amendment to it to make the changes? Why are they saying it's up to the officials to give them a rationale for it? The officials are saying there is no problem. If they don't respect the wisdom of the officials and their expertise, they should bring the amendment forward so that we can vote for it or against it. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere here, and I don't think that's fair to the other members of the committee.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I've sat at all of the hearings. I haven't heard one witness talk about the definitions. Now, if there's such a problem... I sat, if you recall, on Bill C-17 and Bill C-68. There were many discussions about definitions by the witnesses themselves. There have been no discussions by the witnesses about these definitions. Now, if there is a change, we've asked to have it stood down. We'll look at it and we'll come back with the officials to give the rationale on whether it can be changed or can't be changed.

Here we are continuing to go on with this part, that part, etc. Let's be fair. It's either that or we'll bring in a motion on this side to restrict debate to five minutes for each particular clause and we'll get on with this. If they want to be fair, we'll give them time. But if they're going to spend two hours on one clause that we agreed to stand down, I think it's a little far-fetched if they think they're going to get away with it, because they're not. It's just not acceptable. We can't sit here for weeks on end.

So I'd like a decision either one way or the other.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, do you have a motion that you want to propose?

Mr. Nault: There's going to be something.

Mr. Allmand: I have a suggestion that might deal with this problem.

Since we've decided to stand down this article, it may be a good thing if an appropriate official, someone who is familiar with some of these things, meets with one of the three representatives of the Bloc Québécois. They could do so either when we adjourn or even while the committee is sitting, they could go through the problems that they have with clause 2 and the definitions -

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Allmand: - and they could then come back either satisfied or with suggestions for amendments that we could look at.

I personally looked at this and I have some solutions that deal with their problem. I could go outside with them and in five minutes maybe solve a couple of their problems myself.

But I think we should move on.

Mr. Easter: But there has to be the will to resolve it.

Mr. Allmand: There has to be the political will to move on it, yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, I'm going to back to... With regard to what you were saying about the limitation per clause, we're you saying that in the form of a motion, or was that just a statement?

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be bringing some motions tomorrow. I'm just giving the opposition fair notice, because I believe in fair play. I think there is a need to have discussion on clauses, but if we're going to spend one whole day and only end up doing one clause... If they think that's a game we don't understand, you and I were in opposition between 1988 and 1993 and know very well how that can work.

I know what's been going on all day long. That's fine. We'll put up with it for a day or two, but then we'll bring in some motions to stop this. They can go out and tell their friends or tell the press whatever they like, but we have a very interesting story to tell. So far, in a whole day, we've covered one clause in clause-by-clause considerations. If the opposition wants to spin that this is efficient use of government money, and that there is such a major conspiracy in this particular bill that they think it's necessary to do this, then fine. But I think, quite frankly, that the government can accept the results of the media and everybody else making a decision for us on whether or not we're being reasonable.

We're trying to be reasonable. All I'm saying is that we should debate this based on good common sense. When we get to a clause, we'll debate it for a number of minutes and then we'll get on to the next one. But if we're going to spend a whole day on one clause, then I doubt very much... If I'm not mistaken, there are almost...

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: There are 190.

[English]

Mr. Nault: That means we'll be here for a whole year at the rate we're going. And if the opposition thinks that I'm going to sit here for 182 days to listen to what I've heard already today, you've got another think coming.

.1755

We're going to present motions tomorrow. I want the opposition to be aware of it and accept them, because that's the way it's going to be. If they don't think we're serious about what's fair... We've been sitting here all day on this side. If they think there's a problem now...

Here's the argument, Mr. Chairman. This bill has been available to this particular opposition since December. To come in here now and say that this is your first opportunity to talk about the definitions... Well, holy man, what's been going on since December? Has everybody been in Florida? Where have they been?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Nault: I'm just signalling that there's a major frustration on this side, and we're going to deal with it tomorrow officially, or the opposition can deal with it unofficially by being a little more cooperative. Let's see some clauses move along here.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. That statement by the parliamentary secretary contains about three value judgements on the work we're doing. He's told us several times now that the bill must be adopted and that the timetable has already been set. Because we in opposition have spent two hours on the definitions in a bill that will have an impact on billions of dollars and will affect millions of people, we are told we're not doing our job, that we're not representing people. When you sign a marriage contract, you spend a few hours examining what you have to sign, just like when you sign an insurance policy contract. Here what we're doing affects millions of people. The parliamentary secretary's statement was very offensive.

[English]

Mr. Nault: Guaranteed tomorrow.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: He made a value judgement about our work as opposition members.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, just one second. If I understood Mr. Nault correctly, what he basically said was that you've had access to the bill since December. Between December and now you may have had - I know we all have busy schedules - opportunities to make some requests of HRD, or maybe of Mr. Nault himself, to get some clarification as to the meaning of some words.

I view that as a pretty good argument, myself. I also view your argument vis-à-vis the ability to ask questions as fair. It's part of the committee process. But the question we also need to answer is why wasn't some of the homework not done prior to this particular thing?

We've spent two hours discussing... I know that when you say definitions of an act that deals with many -

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, you've interrupted my colleague and you are still making value judgements.

[English]

The Chairman: No.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: It's a problem.

[English]

The Chairman: It's not really a question of privilege. Mr. Nault was basically asking a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: He told us that we were wasting the time...

[English]

The Chairman: It's not a question of...

Mr. Dubé, I haven't recognized you yet, so let me finish my speech.

I don't see how his statement infringes upon your ability to perform as a member of Parliament in this committee. I don't think it does that.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, comment 761, states:

.1800

You have noted that he said that things are not necessarily matters of privilege. That's a question of judgment. Yes, we've been working on this for many months, but we are now at a stage when we must work on the clauses of the bill. Before adopting a clause, it seems to me that we must review it correctly.

All the rules say that in committee, we can intervene, ask questions and see where they lead us. This is not a sausage factory.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to be more careful in the vocabulary he uses. Perhaps it would expedite the debates and avoid stretching out some questions. We can't let such things go. If we did that, it would be worse next time and we'd be caught in a trap. Let's settle the matter completely.

[English]

The Chairman: I can tell you as chair that I admire the way you do your job, and I'm sure Mr. Nault is also doing his.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I was disturbed by the statements made by the parliamentary secretary who said that we were wasting time. It was said that we should do all the work when we're not sitting in committee.

I take as an example the fact that the parliamentary secretary is not clear in the first amendment he's proposing on the first day, for the first clause, in the first definition. He's the very example of improvisation and he would like us to do his homework for him.

Thank you very much for your attention. It makes me feel important. I will wait until you're finished.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, I heard what you had to say.

Do you have anything to add?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I don't have the heart to do that.

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, we have known each other for a long time and I respect you, but I don't think it's right to ask us to improve the issues we discussed this morning, namely the first clause tabled by the parliamentary secretary. It turned out that it is this clause which created the problem in the first place.

Since Thursday evening, the parliamentary secretary was wrong on at least four occasions. This morning again, he told us we had received something and that a decision had been taken, but that turned out to be wrong.

When someone who has been wrong three or four times in a row makes an argument, I am even more sceptical and have even more questions. As well, this person, instead of addressing the how and why of an issue, is threatening to cut us off if the situation doesn't change.

Mr. Chairman, I'll repeat what Paul Crête said. We've just wasted 15 minutes on a single intervention in order to save time. If members were reasonable enough to let us ask our questions and if we received the right answers, we would save time and improve the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Brown.

Mrs. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary is not here to hear me. I beg his indulgence, and ask him not to wag his finger at me any more as he talks about the opposition side of this particular room.

When it comes to reasonableness, I think there has been a great deal of cooperation in terms of reasonableness, in terms of meeting the schedule of the government.

I remember sitting here through most of January, Mr. Chairman, at the wish of the committee. The government prorogued, and of course our timetable has now been somewhat distorted, and we are in somewhat of a rush to finish with the work of this bill.

But I would also like to tell the parliamentary secretary that indeed if he intends to put forward a motion on limiting debate tomorrow, that particular motion is not limited. If he wants to do that, and to threaten and coerce the opposition parties, then we are going to sit here for weeks debating his motion on limiting debate, because it's my understanding that that particular debate has no end.

So if he wants to play hardball, we're prepared on this side of the House to play a little hardball.

.1805

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I hope I've given you lots of time today.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Oh, yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Thank you. In terms of this debate, Mr. Chairman, I think you've tried to be more than fair and reasonable. We've tried on this side to be fair and reasonable. We have agreed to stand down this clause for the time being while some work is being done to it.

That does not limit the debate when we come back. As you said, we don't want to see a repetition of what has already been stated.

But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in order to move on, instead of being fair, you may have to be a little more forceful in terms of parliamentary rules. I would suggest that if there are no amendments coming forward, we move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Standing Order 116 stipulates clearly that it is not permitted to limit the speaking time of members, except if a motion like this one is made. We are told that might happen tomorrow. You can make that motion if you want to, that's your responsibility. But the Standing Order is quite clear: you can't limit the speaking time in committee. That's an old tradition. You can look up the interpretation.

[English]

Mr. Nault: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Dubé: Pardon?

Mr. Nault: I just want you to know that the rule book you keep batting around deals with the House of Commons; it does not deal with committees. Committees are a creation of themselves. The committee -

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I will read Standing Order 116 in its entirety.

Mrs. Lalonde: Now you have problems!

Mr. Crête: I would like the parliamentary secretary to listen.

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, read it.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second -

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, this is not a filibuster. Since I've told that it's not found in the Standing Orders, I will read it to you. It says:

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, a credible situation.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second.

Mr. Nault, there was a question provided by Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Through the Chair, of course.

Mr. Crête: Did Mr. Nault hear the question? If not, I will repeat it.

[English]

The Chairman: Maybe Mr. Nault didn't hear. He usually understands questions.

Mr. Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me make it clear that I'm not the chairman of the committee. If Mr. Crête wants to make a position to the chair, then he can go through the chair. I'm not here to listen to every single thing the opposition has to say. I'm here to deal with the clauses as they relate to this bill.

Now, every time they make a presentation, everything is a point of privilege with the folks across the way. My ears would be sore if I didn't sometimes talk to my own colleagues.

So I suspect what they should be doing is going through the chair. If there's a question to the government as to what the government's position is on a particular bill - this bill in this case - then that's fine. But I'm not here to do question and answer period. That's in the House of Commons on the floor at Question Period.

When my time comes, I'll answer those questions, if I get that chance. But right now I don't I have to sit here and deal with this.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask you the question. The parliamentary secretary stated that we were not allowed to make as many interventions if we were to get on with our work. I read standing order 116 which says:

.1810

By reading and interpreting this standing order, can the Chairman confirm what I said, that is, it is not permitted to limit speaking time except if the committee passes a motion to the contrary, or do you support what the parliamentary secretary said? We have to clear up this issue once and for all in order to get on more efficiently with our work.

[English]

The Chairman: There's no motion from the parliamentary secretary. I haven't received one and you haven't heard one, so there's really nothing to comment on.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I heard the parliamentary secretary say that at no point during the hearings did a witness question the definitions. I'm not surprised; that's basically due to the fact that the bill contains 190 clauses which fundamentally alter the rules, to the point where researchers said that there were so many changes which were so complex that they were not able to assess the costs. When a group has half an hour to make a presentation and answer questions, they don't focus on definitions. But it is our responsibility to do so, and I need to know what you think, Mr. Chairman.

I have only been a member of Parliament since 1993 and this is the only committee I've ever sat on. I always thought that a member's duty at the clause by clause study stage of a bill was to ask relevant questions of senior officials. I never believed that a member should work with senior officials alone on a bill containing 190 clauses as well as appendices.

We need answers in writing which appear on the record. I think that's our right as members of Parliament. But we are told that a good member of Parliament should simply table an amendment, if that's the case, or to vote on an amendment proposed by the government party. This goes completely against everything I have read and learned and, up to a certain point, what I have experienced when studying other bills on this committee.

I want to keep on asking questions about clause 2, because I have more. I think it's my right to ask questions. If the parliamentary secretary is too tired, he may leave. But we will stay.

Mr. Crête: Even if he is younger!

Mrs. Lalonde: Even if he is younger.

[English]

The Chairman: I won't take that as a statement against young people.

Mrs. Lalonde: Not at all.

[Translation]

I object to ageism.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps you may want to apologize now before he brings in a -

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: No, no, I object to ageism against the young and the old. It has nothing to do with age.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Look, we're going to go; the bell's going to -

Excuse me, Madame Lalonde. The bell's probably going to ring in the next two or three minutes. The reality is that in committee work there are rules, regulations and all sorts of things that you can do and that you can play with, all sorts of... I've been at it for almost eight years now and I've been in your place.

The point is that as a committee we're going to go forward only if we decide to work together, right? That's my intention. And we work within certain parameters and latitude. I know what the opposition parties have to do. I've been there. I know what the government members have to do. I've also been there.

We're going to have to come up with some kind of a formula for accommodation here. I understand your point. You want to spend two and a half hours on very important definitions. The reality is that we have... You know the impact of this legislation. You apparently know the government agenda. You know all these things. We also have...I wouldn't call them time constraints, but we have to look at the calendar and see how long we can spend on this.

.1815

You're going to have to decide how long you want to spend on it. We can't afford to spend two or three hours on each clause, because I don't know how many people will stick around that long. So we need to find some accommodation. I'm sure this will shake itself out in the next couple of hours or so.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Brown: In order to move this along, given that legislative counsel is not overworked or overburdened, particularly under any kind of time constraints, could we not have French- and English-speaking representatives from legislative counsel assist us through these difficult times? I think it would be appropriate to have legislative counsel here to help us and help push forward the debate.

The Chairman: The clerk will look into this.

Mrs. Brown: Thank you.

The Chairman: Is there anything else that can make life a little easier here? Are there any other suggestions?

Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If the parliamentary secretary were to withdraw his notice of closure for tomorrow, it would surely improve the atmosphere on the committee.

[English]

Mr. Nault: No.

The Chairman: Just stop question period, as Mr. Nault says.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: It might seem funny, but I'm serious. My colleagues opposite seem to be implying that, in terms of clarification, they had access to more information than we did.

We may be willing not to defeat the amendments in front of the officials and settle on getting answers regarding section 2. The others would be able to save their evening and we would get the answers to our questions. That might be a solution and it would put an end to the bickering between us.

Mrs. Lalonde: If they don't hear us, they won't have anything to complain about.

Mr. Dubé: We are not preventing them from coming.

[English]

The Chairman: You won't be doing that with the committee sitting, of course. You'll be doing that on your private time.

Mr. Dubé: No, no.

The Chairman: Not now.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, the bells don't ring here, do they?

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: This isn't over yet!

[English]

The Chairman: The bells are ringing. I don't know which ones, but...

The Bloc's proposal is that they would have time this evening to discuss those issues with the officials, which means the rest will not be sitting tonight.

An hon. member: I can live with that.

Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): If they need to get briefed, it's okay.

The Chairman: But I don't understand -

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we don't want to take the time of the committee. The committee is here and willing to work. We can go from clause 2 - and stand it, as we did - to clause 3 and continue this evening. The officials will be available tomorrow at 8 a.m. if the members across the way would like to meet with them outside of this committee, but I don't think we should shut down the work of the committee to have the members meet with them separately. I have already indicated that the members have had since December to meet with the officials at any time they wished.

We're not in a dictatorship here. This is a democracy. If they wanted to meet with the officials, we could have accommodated them at any time, but I don't think we should take the time of the committee now - shut it down - to have them meet with them. If they want to meet at 8 a.m., we'll make arrangements for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I withdraw my proposal because I think it's wrong to deprive the government of information.

Mrs. Lalonde: That's right.

Mr. Dubé: Sometimes, you have to change your mind in life. Well, I'm changing my mind. I'm withdrawing my suggestion.

[English]

The Chairman: It would be the first time, if you're speaking in favour of training.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Well, we obviously don't want to deprive you from receiving information.

Mrs. Lalonde: We'll have a lot more fun at midnight.

Mr. Crête: I suggest that the meeting be adjourned until after the vote. I think we all need to relax a bit and think things over, and then we'll see what will happen.

Mr. Dubé: In order to come up with better ideas.

Mrs. Lalonde: What time are we coming back?

.1820

Mr. Crête: After the vote or at 7:30 at the latest, whichever comes first.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll adjourn and come back at approximately 7:35 p.m. or 7:40 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page

;