[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
.1940 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. I'm glad the committee has decided that we're going to do the entire bill tonight.
We are going back to deal with amendment G-O. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee, amendment G-O is basically a correction of a typo in Bill C-12.
.1945
The amendment is that the English version of clause 2 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 25 on page 2 and substituting the following:
- 5(1)(e), it includes that individual;
The Chairman: That's pretty clear. If there is no debate on that point.... I guess it's pretty self-explanatory.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Tonight we're going to do it all.
Madam Lalonde, do you have a question?
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde (Mercier): I have a question on the definition of ``documents''.
We read that the definition of ``documents'' in the old section 52 has been added so that, together with clauses 134 and 143, this amendment - it should perhaps read ``permettre'' in French - permits the documents to be transmitted electronically and used. As to administrative amendment no. 11, I don't have it. I would like to know what that means and what it refers to.
While I completely agree that you can't stop progress when it comes to defending the rights of individuals who, for example, have complaints to make or decisions to criticize, it is extremely important that the documents be available. I want to know exactly what this means.
Mr. Luc Leduc (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): There used to be no definition of ``documents''.
Ms Lalonde: There was none.
Mr. Leduc: There was one in the part concerning the Minister of Revenue. We used it in part here.
Now that a definition of ``documents'' has been drafted for the purposes of the bill as a whole, each time we find the word ``documents'', we can read the definition appearing in clause 2 and use it for electronic purposes in the same way, which will enable the department eventually to computerize or use any other electronic medium to keep its records and communicate with its clients.
Mr. Guy Grenon (Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Development, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): A definition of ``documents'' is given in two places in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Our task was to take the definition that appeared in two other places in the act and to insert it in clause 2 so that it would apply to the Unemployment Insurance Act as a whole.
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): In the same place, in the first line, it reads:
- includes money, securities ...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, the interpreter is having problems following you. Can you perhaps be more descriptive vis-à-vis which lines of the bill you're referring to or which items?
.1950
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am referring to lines 13 and 14 on page 2.
While you think about that, I would like to know how appropriate it is to put the words ``money'' and ``documents'' together.
Mr. Leduc: This is a definition that comes from Part III concerning the Minister's responsibility for premiums and collection.
Ms Lalonde: Could you give us all the articles in which the word ``documents'' is used?
Mr. Leduc: We could do a computer search.
Ms Lalonde: Please.
Mr. Dubé: The definition of ``documents'' is section 52 is similar, if not the same.
Ms Lalonde: No, it is not exactly the same because, in section 3, it is not the same.
Mr. Dubé: The word ``computerized'', for example, was removed. Why was it removed? The definition of ``documents'' in this bill includes books, whether they are computerized or not.
Mr. Leduc: In subclause 2(3), we inserted a broader definition of what a document might be; it includes what was in the old act. Every computerized document will now be covered by the definition in subclause 2(3). We no longer needed the definition of ``computerized'' because of the power we gave ourselves in clause 2(3).
Mr. Dubé: It is nevertheless somewhat funny that you pick part of the definition out of the text rather than integrate it into the definition. Why did you not leave ``in electronic form'' in the definition of ``documents''?
Mr. Leduc: We had to give a general definition of ``documents'' and we subsequently wanted to give it very broad scope.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Does that mean that you did not want the word ``electronic'' to be used in certain places in the act? If so, I would like to know where.
Mr. Leduc: I don't remember us thinking that.
Mr. Crête: But do you understand my logic?
Mr. Leduc: I understand.
[English]
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Maybe it's not a point of order, but if I wanted to debate this point for the next 45 minutes like we have for the last few hours, but I won't....
Someone made a motion just before the bell rang that one of the opposition parties or both of them might like to have the officials here this evening for questioning. It didn't go through, but it looks like it has gone through.
I would certainly move for the party opposite to be able to host the officials as long as they can get the officials to stay. But there's no use in our staying here while you discuss the bill because of what you haven't studied before, my honourable colleagues.
I would make a motion, which probably my own side here will defeat, that the Bloc and whoever else wants to should stay with the officials this evening, but there would be no votes. You would just stay and you could learn, debate the bill and question it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Has someone formally made the motion?
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Yes, I made the motion.
.1955
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It was he who made the motion.
[English]
The Chairman: Now, we'll have to deal with the motion. Any discussion? Questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If I correctly understand the motion, you want the members of the majority to be able to leave the committee meeting and the opposition members who might have questions to ask ...
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Anyone who has questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: ... to be able to do so. That means then that the committee would continue to sit.
A voice: No.
Mr. Crête: Well, if anyone can ask questions, that, in my view, means that the committee continues to sit and that, if there are votes to be taken, we can take them. I would really like to understand this before having to vote on it because it will be different if the committee continues to sit. You have a choice whether to be present or not. You don't need a motion for that because you simply have to make a personal choice. I would really like to understand the conditions in which this will be done. I want to understand what I will have to vote on.
So certain members could leave and the committee could continue to sit. Would we have the right to vote during that time? These are questions that seem to me relevant and it is not necessarily up to the mover to answer them. We could ask the clerk or someone else to check.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Mr. Chair, I should have made a motion to ask for a briefing session. That's what I should have made, but I want to have permission to withdraw that motion and ask that it be possible for the officials to be present for a briefing session for those who wish it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Does that mean that the sitting is suspended during that time? Are you moving that the committee adjourn?
[English]
Mr. McCormick: I'll vote for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Is there a motion on the floor?
The Chairman: There's a motion on the floor. There is some discussion. I guess you don't need to discuss this issue any more; you understand what Mr. McCormick is saying. Everybody does, I gather. All those in favour of the motion?
Mr. McCormick: Don't say I never gave you an opportunity.
The Chairman: Do you want a roll call on this?
Mr. McCormick: With all the time I spend working for the Bloc, a lot of thanks I get.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: Now we go back to state your definition. Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: The second sentence of subclause 2(3) reads:
- La mention d'un formulaire, d'un registre, d'un livre, d'un avis, d'une demande, d'une
sommation, d'une décision ou de tout autre document comprend sa version sous forme
électronique.
Mr. Leduc: I have to find where the word ``sommation'' is used in the bill. We are going to try to find it. The idea is quite simply to give ourselves the authority to do so in cases where it would be permitted for this to done in electronic form.
Ms Lalonde: This is not a joke. In my view, there can be no other type of ``sommation'' than that served by a process server.
[English]
Mr. Leduc: Excuse me,
[Translation]
We're going to find it. ``Sommation" is used in the sense of a demand rather than that of a summons served by a process server.
Ms Lalonde: But ``sommation'' is written here.
Mr. Leduc: I'm looking at the English text, which tells me that it is a demand.
.2000
Mr. Crête: Could it be a mistranslation?
Mr. Leduc: No, it is a ``sommation'' instead of a ``demande''.
Mr. Crête: Is the word ``sommation'' intended?
Mr. Leduc: A computer search will have to be done to find where the word ``sommation'' is used in the act.
Ms Lalonde: ``Sommation'' has a precise meaning, particularly in the text of the act. ``Sommation'' is a legal term.
Mr. Leduc: We're doing a computer search to find where the word ``sommation'' is used.
Mr. Crête: But doing a search isn't enough. We have to know whether a ``sommation'' in electronic form actually exists.
Ms Lalonde: It doesn't exist.
Mr. Crête: That's what you say, Francine, but the bill goes on as though it did exist. Or else the wrong word has been used, or else it doesn't exist.
Mr. Leduc: It's not the wrong word. If we have to proceed by ``sommation'', the authority this definition gives us will enable us, if you consider it appropriate, to do so in electronic form or in any form other than documentary form.
Mr. Crête: You are creating a significant legal precedent that is not found in other statutes, in all other legal or judicial cases. Are you creating a new right with this?
Mr. Leduc: We are evolving, just as the law is evolving, toward new forms of communication. We have given ourselves the authority to do so eventually.
Ms Lalonde: So that we don't need to revise the act with 20 years? Since it is a very long process in committee ...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move amendment G-2, that clause 3 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 22 on page 4 and substituting the following:
- 3.(1) The Commission shall monitor and assess
(b) whether the savings expected as a result of the changes of this Act are being realized; and
(c) the effectiveness of the benefits and other assistance provided under this Act, including
(i) how the benefits and assistance are utilized by employees and employers, and
(ii) the effect of the benefits and assistance on the obligation of the claimants to be available for and to seek employment and on the efforts of employers to maintain a stable workforce.
- Report
- (2) The Commission shall report to the Minister on its assessment annually from 1997 to the
year 2001 no later than December 31 each year and shall make any additional reports at any
other times, as the Minister may request.
What I want to lay out for you in subclause 3(2) requires a report to the minister on the assessment by December 31, 1998, and any additional reports as requested by the minister. The proposed amendment would require an annual report for 1997 to the year 2001 and additional reports at any time at the minister's request, Mr. Chairman. That's the extent of the rationale to the amendment under clause 3.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order. We have been on clause 2 since the start and, unless I have misunderstood, the parliamentary secretary suddenly moved on to clause 3, whereas we have not yet disposed of clause 2 and there are many ...
Ms Lalonde: We still have questions.
Mr. Crête: ... definitions that have not been ...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to continue on my point of order since you allowed Mr. Nault to finish his presentation.
[English]
Mr. Nault: The point is we stood down, Mr. Chairman. If in fact we stood down clause 2, which we agreed to before we recessed for the vote, then I think it appropriate we now move on to clause 3 and get into the debate.
.2005
If they want to go back to clause 2, we'll go back to it some other time. When it has not been stood and we are in debate about clause 2, it's perfectly legitimate.... Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, why are we debating clause 2, when in fact we're not on clause 2, we're on clause 3?
The Chairman: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated, or whether I am going to have to speak in Chinese or the another language, but we are engaged in a very important debate on the fact that we have the right to debate this clause. The parliamentary secretary himself has recognized that he did not have the authority to limit our speaking time as long as we have not finished discussing a particular clause.
That is quite unfortunate for him, but we have the right to debate this clause. You can claim to move on to clause 3, but that is out of order and you may be certain that if something of this kind happens, we will go to the House to show that you're not respecting parliamentarians' will or right to object.
I'm going to give you an example: the definition of ``insurable employment'' in clause 2. It states:
- ``insurable employment'' has the meaning assigned by section 5.
- This is a very important definition of the bill and section 5. However, instead of defining it in
clause 2, it is defined in clause 5.
This is a fundamentally important clause. I introduced a bill in the House and the Minister himself said in committee - and I believe there were also experts - that he would consider this situation, that he had experienced similar cases in his district, that it was not a proper situation and that a solution had to be found to the current bottleneck of insurance cases.
[English]
Mr. Nault: All I'm asking for is one explanation.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: He has no right to interrupt you.
Mr. Crête: We want to show by means of this example that there are still many matters to discuss in clause 2, that we have not finished debating it and that the parliamentary secretary's motion to move on to clause 3 immediately is out of order.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: My understanding is that clause 2 has been stood. Has it or hasn't it? If it has, we will not stand it, we can let them continue to have the discussion, and when they have finished we'll move to the motion. My understanding is that we stood clause 2. All we asked the members for was special compensation to deal with G-0, but clause 2 was stood down before the vote. If it was, we'll go back to clause 2 and debate it at another time. We'll get on to clause 3 and if they want to ask questions on clause 3, fine.
Either it has been stood or it hasn't. If it has not been stood, please let us know. Make the ruling and we'll carry on.
The Chairman: It has not been stood, because when G-0 was reintroduced you had to go back to the clause.
Mr. Nault: Well then, Mr. Chairman, we do not agree with it being stood. We'll let them debate it and then we'll vote on it.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Nault: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: May we come back to consideration of clause 2? I can ask my questions on the definition of ``insurable employment'' that appears at lines 37 and 38 on page 2, where it reads:
- Has the meaning assigned by section 5.
Why was it decided not to include this definition in clause 2, which concerns definitions, and to leave it in another clause than the clause that concerns definitions?
.2010
Why didn't the department adopt the clause ...? Did the department see that the bottleneck I described earlier was real?
I know that, before switching departments, Mr. Axworthy created a joint committee with the Minister of Revenue of the time to consider this situation. He wrote to me personally on the subject. That joint committee was supposed to find solutions. As that was about a year ago, I was not expecting every necessary legislative correction to appear in the bill. However, none of these changes are in it.
If the bill is passed in its present form, insurable employment will retain its earlier definition. People working from May to September will continue to think that their employment is insurable. In September, they will be told that their employment is not insurable and that they will institute an appeal at that time. They will receive a letter giving them 30 or 90 days - I don't know how many - to appeal. Then they will go on to the next stage. Someone who wins his case - I'm not talking about those who lose because at least they will have a favourable result under the act - will have to wait two, three, four or five years before receiving his money. As not everybody earns an MP's salary, they may well have serious problems.
In my riding, I have complex cases of this kind. People ultimately wind up on welfare and do not receive a cheque for two and a half to three years. This isn't really good for them. I wonder why the situation was not corrected in the definition of ``insurable employment''.
Mr. Leduc: I'm going to answer your first question as to why the definition of ``insurable employment'' does not appear in clause 2.
That is quite simply because clause 5 contains an exhaustive list of what constitutes insurable employment. It was not inserted in clause 2.
Mr. Crête: That's not an answer to my question, Mr. Leduc. The length of the definition does not change the fact that it should have appeared under the heading of definitions because there is not much text referring to definitions. Does the term ``insurable employment'' appear in places where it does not have the meaning assigned by clause 5? Is there an explanation for that or is it simply a technical decision?
Mr. Leduc: ``Insurable employment'' is defined exhaustively in clause 5. So we didn't need to define it elsewhere.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 ...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, that was a very clear answer he gave.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On the first part, yes, but there was a second part to my question.
[English]
The Chairman: We got that answer. We're not going to go back to the same thing again.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You know that the second part of my question was much more complex. It concerned the whole question of the bottleneck that has been observed everywhere in our ridings.
[English]
The Chairman: Can you explain the issue of the bottleneck?
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon McFee (Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): First of all, a year or 18 months ago, there was an incredible bottleneck in the appeals process and a number of cases had been submitted to Revenue Canada.
Since that time, the Federal Court has rendered two important judgments. With respect to the number of appeals, my directorate has had consultations with Revenue Canada and we have agreed to take corrective measures.
Revenue Canada officials are aware of the situation because there are problems at two levels: the Minister's determinations and appeals to the Tax Court. The Minister is currently taking measures to speed up the process.
As for the Tax Court, you have to wait for its judgments.
Mr. Crête: Why didn't the Department of Human Resources Development consider the possibility that this decision on ``insurable employment'' could be made at each Canada Employment Centre rather than by Revenue Canada? With the number of service points in Canada, there would have been many more places where the decision could have been made much closer to citizens. There are often situations in which a Human Resources Development Canada official gives an initial opinion, which is reversed by Revenue Canada, and not necessarily always to the same effect.
.2015
So it would be important to include in the definition that this must be done according to Human Resources Development Canada and not Revenue Canada.
I would like to know whether a document was produced by the joint committee formed byMr. Axworthy and, according to the letter I received, consisting of senior officials from both the Department of Revenue and Human Resources Development. Were there results that clearly show that this was the best solution because, contrary to what you say - this is my perception today - the bottleneck still exists. I could give you a list of very significant cases from my riding alone. These are very difficult human situations for the people who have to go through them.
Mr. McFee: When I first spoke, I simply wanted to say that we knew there was a very large number of appeals in this area.
Second, I would like to add that the decision is very often not disputed. That's nothing new. Three or four years ago, when the measure was first introduced, there was an enormous increase in the volume of applications at the first or second level. A joint interdepartmental committee decided the question by setting up a screening system. Officers from our department review the claims for benefits in these cases. They ask a host of questions, perhaps nine or 10, depending on the kind of answers given to their questions. The case is not normally referred to Revenue Canada and the application is accepted on the spot.
If necessary, the case must be referred to Revenue Canada. The official decision is up to Revenue Canada because it has the power to make an official decision.
As to the last part of your question, as to whether it would be possible to transfer decision-making authority in this area, I don't believe it is appropriate for me to make such a recommendation.
Mr. Crête: Would you repeat that?
Mr. Dubé: He doesn't believe it is appropriate for him to make such a recommendation.
Mr. Grenon: Revenue Canada is responsible for premiums, not only under the unemployment insurance program, but also with respect to contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and income tax. Before determining what may be deducted at source, a determination has to be made as to what insurable employment is. So it's preferable that Revenue Canada continue to play this role.
You will see later, in clause 90, that we have introduced the notion of a ``request'' for a formal decision by Revenue Canada. We worked jointly with Revenue Canada on this.
A person who starts a job in which there are doubts as to whether the parties are dealing with each other at arm's length may now, under clause 90 of Bill C-12, request when the employment starts that Revenue Canada render a decision as to whether the employment is insurable. Revenue Canada's decision will count for the duration of the employment. When the person comes to make a claim for benefits, everything will be in order. There will be no problem. That person will know that the employment is insurable.
So we are working with Revenue Canada in order to improve the situation.
Mr. Crête: But you have put that in another clause rather than clause 5. Why?
Mr. Grenon: Clause 5, if you understand it ...
[English]
Mr. Easter (Malpèque): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what this question has to do with interpretation of a definition.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm going to answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Easter: If it doesn't have anything to do with interpretation of a definition, I would ask you to rule it out of order.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The definition of ``insurable employment'' at lines 37 and 38 of page 2 reads:
- ``insurable employment'' has the meaning assigned by section 5.
- Thus, reference must necessarily be made to clause 5 in order to see that this means. I don't want
to ask questions about the word ``has'', but only about the word ``the'', the word ``meaning'',
the words ``assigned by'', the word ``section'' or about the figure ``5''.
I have to ask a question in reference to what is written in clause 5 and on the basis of that definition. That is where this definition appears in full.
Subclause 5(1) on page 5 reads:
5(1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is
And there it is defined what insurable employment is. I asked the witness why this had not been integrated into clause 2 under the heading of definitions, and I was told that that's the way it was, period. However, I nevertheless have to refer to it.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry. He can explain to you exactly what he asked.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is the explanation ...
[English]
The Chairman: Actually, I think you've explained yourself quite well.
Why don't we start getting our heads around how we're going to proceed? This has really gone on a little too long. We're going to have to tighten up the questions; for example, don't give me speeches, just get right to it. Don't give me long speeches, those are for the House. We want very short questions, very concise and precise answers.
I'm also going to ask someone to consider the following. Perhaps we should be thinking - all of us around this table, all three parties -
Mr. McCormick: On a point of order, but it's two parties. Thank you.
The Chairman: Members of the committee, on each clause we have to have what is reasonable debate. I don't want to stifle debate, but it's going to have to be five minutes, ten minutes, fifteen minutes per clause. We can't go two or two and a half hours for each clause. We just can't go on like this.
As chair I'm of course going to be asking for the guidance of the members, but we can't continue in this fashion. I've allowed it up to a point, but now let's start talking a bit about it.
I apologize to the officials. This is really something that goes above and beyond the reason they're here.
Let's start talking a bit about how we're going to deal with this. Is it going to be five, ten minutes per clause? Somebody should start this discussion, because I personally have no intention of spending two and a half hours on each clause.
Mr. Allmand will go first.
Mr. Allmand: Again, in an attempt to assist, could I suggest that if members of the committee have questions with respect to clause 2, as they've had, they simply and briefly put their questions in areas where they think there's confusion or lack of clarity and that we not have the answers from the officials tonight? It seems that the officials could give all the answers either in writing or verbally tomorrow, all at once.
We're getting a question, then an answer, then further questions, further answers, and further questions.
It seems to me that if there's concern about clarity of certain clauses, the members opposite should simply put the definition and ask to have it explained because of certain reasons. They can ask for clarification of the definition, leave it at that, stand it, and go on to three.
The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, I'm going to make, as the chair, and you can challenge the chair if you want.... I'm not going to tolerate two and half hours on a clause, that's for sure. I think it's bordering on...well, I can't find the precise term, but it's not an efficient use of time. We've got to find a better system than this.
I am asking the members of the committee to keep their questions short, precise, concise, and to the point, and I ask the same thing of the officials. Pretty soon we're all going to start getting tired, so why don't we try this?
I'm going to watch, for the next 15 to 20 minutes, how it progresses. I want to see how quickly we can get our questions out to the officials and how quickly they can give us the answers.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I may be mistaken, but it is my impression that, for the past five or six minutes, there has been an attempt to regulate my manner of speaking, the manner in which I speak as a member of the committee.
.2025
The Standing Orders provide that we must be able to ask all questions, and here you are saying that this should last only 10 or 15 minutes and that we have to ensure that matters proceed in such and such a fashion. That is not what the Standing Orders state. The Standing Orders state that, in committee, I am entitled to ask all the necessary questions and that we are entitled to go through all the clauses. I would like to know whether I am not entitled to ask all the questions I consider relevant to the definitions. The definition of ``insurable employment'', I repeat, is a very good example. It is very important because these are matters that we have encountered in our ridings.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I'm going to accept everything from all members; one thing I will not accept is the fact that I'm being unfair. My God, we've been on one clause for two and a half hours. If you think I'm not being fair and democratic, you've got to be kidding yourselves, but you're not going to kid me.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I think we've spent a lot of time on clause 2. I would move a motion that we should limit debate on further sections of clause 2 to five minutes per section.
The Chairman: Is this to be applied to all clauses?
Mr. Easter: No, just to this particular one, clause 2.
The Chairman: Okay. Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I asked you ...
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Lalonde was first, then Mr. Crête, then Mr. Dubé. You're not going to reiterate any of the same points. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an interpretation problem. The same point can be raised on numerous occasions and I believe you have to call on outside advice. It was confirmed to us this afternoon by the people who are here and by others that, in committee, the number of addresses by members wishing to ask questions and the duration of their remarks may not be restricted.
An attempt is made to limit us from time to time. If we speak for five minutes, that's out of order. That's going to be said as often as necessary. However, we think it is pointless and that we're wasting time rising on points of order with which all parliamentarians are familiar, especially those with any experience.
[English]
Mr. Nault: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I think it's time to use our legal advice. Of course, one of the reasons we have legal people here and the clerk is to give us the interpretation of what the rules are.
What's being suggested by our friends across the way is that because they're bandying around the rule book, there are no abilities for members to put motions to limit debate. This is when we all know that this quite frankly is not true.
I think it's time that the clerk and the legal people with you define what the rules really are so the opposition is aware of it, instead of suggesting that somehow they've become experts on the rule book, and we don't know what the rules are.
We know what the rules say, Mr. Chairman. If we present a motion and it's passed by a majority, we can restrict debate. We're quite willing to do that, but I think it's time for the clerk and the legal people to define the rules of that particular clause.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
Paragraph (1) of citation 760, at page 222 of Beauchesne's Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th Edition, provides:
- 760(1) Committees are regarded as creatures of the House. The Standing Orders of the House of
Commons apply to committees, so far as they may be applicable, with certain exceptions. These
are contained in Standing Order 116. Motions need not be seconded, there is no limit to either
the number of times a Member may speak in committee, nor do the House time limits on
speeches apply ...
Mr. Dubé: Seven or eight times, the parliamentary secretary...
Mr. Crête: Each time we waste time trying to close debate by straying from the heart of the matter, the government shoots itself in the foot. We should simply be allowed to ask our questions. These are not irrelevant questions that I was asking on clause 5. They are very concrete, very specific questions on actual situations. A minister decided that a committee had to be struck on this issue. These are not matters that come out of nowhere. I'm not reading the Bible.
.2030
So Standing Order 116 is very clear. We have the right to speak and to ask questions to our full satisfaction. We won't be coming back here in a year or two to pass a new statute. We'll have this one with us for a long time.
Ms Lalonde: On a further procedural point, as the previous question cannot be put, the number of speeches cannot be limited.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, during the break, when we went to the House for the vote, I sought the advice of the table people on these matters. I was told that while you cannot, in committee, make a motion of closure on any particular item, you can make a motion for a limitation of time.
I think, in a sense, Mr. Crête's right when he says he, or any member, has the right to ask questions to discuss. That's true. But at a certain point....
Mr. Crête, while I'm tolerant in asking questions, it appears to me that you're going beyond that in that each question is a major speech or a major discussion. I'm absolutely sure you could ask those questions much more explicitly and specifically. But you are adorning the question with a long discussion each time in a long speech. If you were simply interested in seeking advice on points relating to the definitions, you could do that much more quickly.
In Quebec, we have a doctrine called an abus des droits. It can be an ``abuse of rights'' when members of Parliament continue to talk and talk and talk on one item to the extent that the government can't deal with its agenda. It would be wrong for the government to close down the opposition, but I think that, since we've been here since 3:30 p.m. on clause 2 and we still haven't been able to deal with the questions on certain articles in clause 2, this is going beyond what is reasonable and getting close to what I would call an abuse of rights.
While I would like to be absolutely fair, I have the impression that we're getting close to the grounds on which you can legitimately introduce a motion.... I don't want to do that. It would be a last resort. But I'm telling you that I've been listening to the speeches and I could ask those questions in one-fifth the time taken for you to ask them. That's if I were simply asking for information and not really trying to take up time.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Chairman, I would then move that each clause be limited to five minutes.
The Chairman: Just one second.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Mr. Allmand has just said that he had inquired with the clerk and that it was impossible.
[English]
The Chairman: It's in order. Just so that you know, Mr. Proud's motion is in order.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: That's not admissible.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, it is.
Mr. McCormick: I second that motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Citation 75 of Beauchesne, 6th Edition, concerns freedom of speech. This of course is something that is important in Parliament. It reads:
- 75. The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental
right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee. It is primarily
guaranteed in the British Bill of Rights which declared ``that the freedom of speech and debates
or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place
outside of Parliament''.
.2035
As to Mr. Proud's motion, I believe it is very dangerous to set a time limit for consideration of the clauses of the bill. This bill contains elements of very different importance. Certain matters may require three hours of debate, whereas others may take only five minutes. Setting a limit for each of the clauses seems to me completely wrong and unproductive because a terrible degree of frustration will develop.
The Liberal members should put forward arguments in favour of the clauses of the bill that will require more than five minutes of discussion. There must be certain matters on which you want to speak. For example, the members from the Maritimes will no doubt wish to speak on the fisheries issue. Imposing a limit is unacceptable.
As to the matter of the right to speak, no one should give me any more explanations about the admissibility ...
[English]
The Chairman: Order. You're saying that five minutes is not enough. Are you proposing seven minutes, six minutes?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I rose on a point of order at the outset with respect to Mr. Allmand's remark that I was abusing my rights. In citing the passage concerning freedom of speech and other examples, I wanted to show that I was not abusing my freedom of speech.
[English]
The Chairman: So that everybody knows, because I think some people have forgotten here, we're dealing with a motion forwarded by Mr. Proud that is basically a motion to limit debate for each clause to a five-minute debate. This is consistent and in order according to section 760. The clerk and my legal counsel say that it is in order. So that's what we're dealing with now. We're not going to discuss anything else until we get to the bottom of this issue.
I hear a question.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, for a bill providing for cuts of nearly $2 billion by the year 2000 and affecting so many people, it makes no sense for us to allow no more than five minutes per clause. Perhaps the only thing that counts for you is to stick to your timetable. You've been told that this has to be sent back to the House of Commons on such and such a day. I'm sorry.
Yes, you've been in opposition. I have read your speeches. If you remembered them, you would see how frustrated you felt. I read Jean Chrétien's letter to all those who encouraged the official opposition of the time to oppose Bill C-113 will all their strength. I would like to see what you did in the committees. I find it a bit much that you should be scandalized by our behaviour. Everyone is pretending he has never seen anything worse than what we're doing, but it's ``small beer''. I don't know how you translate that, but it's not that serious.
We won't be restricted. We're going to take all the time we need. I am still on ``insurable earnings'' and I have questions to ask. It's not true that we are going to take five minutes. I have a great deal of respect for the officials and I sympathize with them because they have an obligation to hear us. However, I'm sorry, they are in the service of the public and I hope they are well paid. As for us, we are going to do the work we have to do. That is our responsibility and no one here is going to gag us. We are going to do it because we have a right to do it and we are going to continue telling you so and demanding that right as long as is necessary in order to establish that the opposition represents a large portion of the public that want nothing to do with this bill, who are right not to want have anything to do with this bill. I know that, in their heart of hearts, some of our colleagues opposite would like not to have to vote in favour of this bill and that they cannot do so because of what happened yesterday. But we are nevertheless going to try to convince them that this bill makes no sense.
.2040
We have asked questions on matters concerning corrections made to the old act because it only needed a reform for its mechanical aspects as it were. We can understand the problems facing those who have to enforce the act. However, those citizens who have to live with this act are entitled to think that the act could be amended in another way.
To date, we have considered only the amendments of this type. We have not yet begun to consider the core of the bill, but we have a responsibility to do so and we are going to do so. It is not true that we are going to take only five minutes per clause. That's not true. We wouldn't even be entitled to agree on that because it would not enable us to carry out our responsibility and our resources are limited.
So I'm going to continue, and there are others ... But we will not accept, Mr. Chairman ... This will take the time it takes. You cannot put the previous question and we are telling you that we will not let you put it if you wish to proceed in this manner.
The choice is yours. We have always cooperated in the work of this committee and we have been rushed. We have argued our points of view and have worked hard.
Since the start of the second stage of consideration of the unemployment insurance bill, the opposition has been repeatedly rushed. We have never been able to discuss the core of this bill amongst ourselves. We have never been able to convince you that, for example, it made no sense to reduce the maximum insurable salary when the government could have decided to maintain it or increase it and thus not to condemn ordinary people to the suffering that it will impose on them.
We have a right to try to convince you. We have a right to try to speak to you and that is what we are going to try to do. We also know that, by virtue of our parliamentary rights, we have the power to continue to try to convince you that it makes no sense to limit us to speeches of five minutes per clause. It makes no sense; we do not accept it and we will not accept it.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have to point out to the committee the difference between what is not allowed under Standing Order 116 and what is allowed. Under 116 we cannot put a motion to close the debate on any one clause - the previous question. We cannot do that. But it's clear that according to the rules, we can make a motion to allocate time to allow all parties to participate in the debate.
Now, with respect to the remarks made by Ms Lalonde, I've listened to her all day and I haven't heard one argument, not one argument, from the Bloc members saying why this is a bad bill. What I've heard are many questions with related debate and discussion, and the same question all over again. I would have been interested in listening to them list arguments why the bill isn't good, but we're not on one of those clauses. They haven't even allowed us to move to another clause.
If we're moving to an allocation of time, which I regret, it's because they are abusing it, and the speech she just gave is a good example. She repeated about six times the same damned argument that she gave in the first place.
They are driving us to adopt an allocation of time. In a democracy, Mr. Speaker, there should be adequate time for the opposition to fully express their views on any question and for the government to fully express their views, and then there should be a vote. If we continue at this pace there will be no voting, and that means the opposition are closing down the right of free discussion on the rest of the clauses in the bill. They are preventing debate on the other 128 clauses because they're carrying on the way they are.
I didn't want to let those arguments stand on the record because I was pretty tolerant all day -
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Allmand: - even supporting their right to ask the questions, but they're beginning to abuse it. I believe they're carrying on a filibuster, and I'll say that directly, and we have to deal with that. I'll support the motion for an allocation of time. I think five minutes is too short. Let them suggest a better time and we'll agree with it.
.2045
The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?
An hon. member: No.
The Chairman: Your comments are going to be based just on the question now. That's what you're going to be debating.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I want to speak on the motion.
[English]
The Chairman: So keep going.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm going to tell you why we cannot agree to speak for only five minutes on each of the clauses.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé was first.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Allmand is an experienced parliamentarian and he raises the level. If anyone can understand what we are doing, it is he. We won't be showing Mr. Allmand, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, what we are doing. He knows our position on the bill. He is also aware of the level of discontent with this bill. He himself, I know, shares some of our concerns. But there are others who are going to learn something today in the debate on Mr. Proud's motion to limit the speaking time of opposition members.
Why are we defending ourselves? This brings us back to the heart of the matter. This is an extremely important bill. Last year, three million persons received unemployment insurance benefits at one time or another.
This bill is part of the reform of social programs and it has been the subject of a green paper. This bill has been the subject of a two-month consultation during which - Ms Lalonde was entirely right on this point - Mr. Crête, Ms Lalonde and myself of the official opposition have cooperated on numerous occasions with those on the other side, including the Chairman, who is a gentleman, but who on many occasions - he will remember and perhaps I am bringing back certain bad memories for him - he had to bear the angry remarks of certain persons who objected to the bill, who saw where the government was headed, who feared a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits, and who feared that the government measures would cause poverty.
I lived through that, Mr. Chairman, and I remember it. I even note that the clerk and many of our interpreters were the same. All these people saw that, on numerous occasions, we reminded the committee members of the time how important it was for them to understand certain human situations, the demonstrations and the briefs.
Last year, we also tabled a report in the House, but as that was before the referendum, not much happened. I wish to point out to Mr. McCormick that not much happened because there was fear, among other things, of Quebeckers' dissatisfaction. That was a year ago. What I am speaking to you about, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, occurred in the fall of 1994. An entire year has passed since that time. There was the referendum and, in December 1995, the government came back with the bill.
We have dragged this bill out for a long time. I say that for the new member who has just arrived. We have dragged it out for more than a year, and the members opposite are accusing us of wanting to prolong the proceedings. I know that certain new members of the committee were not here and did not see this. However, we remember it.
.2050
When I see experienced members trying to intimidate ... That's a bad term and I withdraw it before you ask me to do so.
This could help a new committee member, someone who has no experience, who has not lived through what we on the committee have lived through. Were Mr. Crête's remarks too long?
We waited all year and had a shortened debate after the Christmas holidays. We then began to work fast again and, while everyone was on vacation in January, we worked.
What happened in February, Mr. Chairman? The sitting was prorogued and we were sent home. We no longer had the right to sit because, with the new sitting, the committees had to be restructured.
And now we have been reappointed to the committee and we are continuing our mandate. We have wisely heard all the testimony and we would have liked to hear even more. You know that there are other witnesses who would have liked to be heard. There are no journalists this evening to hear this, but I would like to remind you that at least four times as many groups would have liked to be heard.
And this evening, we are being told that we are dragging matters out. Well, I'm sure this doesn't even represent one percent of the year and a half during which the government has drawn the matter out.
With my short experience of two and a half years, I do not at all feel guilty about taking my time to clarify the situation. People must be aware of the distance that has been travelled, of the words that have been said, of the briefs that have been presented and of the demonstrations. There was another one last weekend in Rivière-du-Loup. I myself went to talk with the people of Rivière-du-Loup because I am a native of that area. Five thousand persons from various regions attended. They were victims of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They told me how concerned they were. These people have followed our proceedings to a degree that surprised me. I spoke to at least 50 people who had watched them on television. They had all heard Mr. Nault. But let's come back to what happened this morning.
They also heard the Minister speak about fraud. I don't want to say that I'm better than my colleagues because we are all working as a team, but I was the one who placed the greatest emphasis on the fraud aspect. Today I came back with the information and what happened?
You thought it was dreadful that I should talked about fraud. I thought the situation had worsened, that it was catastrophic, but looking at the figures appearing in the table, I see that, quite on the contrary, the situation has improved. Many individuals were charged and found guilty of unemployment insurance fraud, but we realize that the interpretation problems of the old act had been repeated in the new bill.
The opposition would have agreed to work to improve the old act and to make it less contestable. We would have offered our full cooperation. Indeed, we continue to offer it,Mr. Chairman.
This morning, I asked the clerk to have a certain number of copies of the existing act made because I was sure the members opposite had none. Now that they have copies, we could look at it together. Why? Because people everywhere are telling us that the new bill is not a good one, that it provides for cuts of $365 million while coming down harder on people who may have committed unemployment insurance fraud. It's as though we had not yet managed to catch all potential abusers. And now we are going to work hard at catching even more. This is very important. So we have to take the necessary time to consider it thoroughly.
.2055
If those opposite at least made suggestions to us. They could tell us: ``Look, we're going to look at such and such an aspect with you and make proposals.'' Or they could say to us: ``We're going to adjourn and discuss a different manner of proceeding.'' I'm willing, but that's not what we were told this morning. Tempers are getting short and an attempt is being made to limit our right to speak.
When I heard the word ``fair'' this afternoon, it was as though an attempt had been made to strip the members opposite of their right to speak. That was never what we had in mind. I believe thatMr. Allmand should have asked his questions, that he should ask them. It is true that he has a talent for being brief. He should give us the benefit of his experience. It is surprising that the members opposite do not ask questions on this; it's as though they wanted to give the impression they know all this by heart.
It would be surprising for anyone to know the scope and legal aspects of 190 clauses. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we must allow all the time necessary for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Answers are needed to all these questions.
We are going to try to prove to you over the next few minutes how important this is. We would like you to withdraw this motion so that we can work in an intelligent manner to improve the bill.
Ms Terrana, is this your first term as a member of the committee? You don't have to answer that question, but, supposing it is your first, you may be attending a committee filibuster for the first time in your life. If you intend to remain in politics for a while, you will see others. So this is your initiation this evening.
I read Mr. Bevilacqua's speeches in the House, especially since he was critic for training and youth.
[English]
The Chairman: For the record, I was also critic for disabled persons and employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I also read that and I was surprised, but the closer he got to power, the better he was. He had principles. I would not like to influence his decisions, but ...
[English]
The Chairman: It's the integrity of the chair now.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I admit to you that I sometimes draw inspiration from certain parts of his old speeches. I make good use of them in preparing my own.
[English]
The Chairman: In context, in hope.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am among those who think you should benefit from the experience of others. You don't reinvent the wheel. So I looked at the conduct of the members of the Liberal Party, in particular their leader Mr. Chrétien, at a demonstration in February 1992 against the fact that the minister of the time, Mr. Valcourt, wanted to make cuts to unemployment insurance.
In the speech he made in Montréal near the Hydro-Québec building, Mr. Chrétien was extraordinarily eloquent. He said: ``We in the Liberal Party will never let Mr. Valcourt make cuts to unemployment insurance, never.''
He made a solemn promise before the Liberal members accompanying him, in particular those from Quebec, that, if he ever because Prime Minister, if ever he took such action ... What do we see today? What do we hear today? These people are doing the opposite today.
Fortunately, Mr. Bevilacqua is not yet a minister. He is not in a contradictory situation. As toMs Terrana, I have not had the opportunity to read her speeches, but I am convinced she has made some very good ones. And if she is on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, she is likely concerned, as are the old members of the committee such as Mr. Regan and Mr. Scott, by the needs of the poorest constituents in her electoral district. Having spoken with Mr. Regan a few times, I am convinced that he is doing excellent work.
.2100
So, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my comments for later, but, in the meantime, I would make an appeal. If the members opposite were not limited by the party line, if they listened to their hearts and if they had compassion, they would be more coherent in their convictions. With Ms Augustine's amendments, I have seen that Messrs. Regan and Scott wanted to take a step in the right direction.
I don't envy your being in power. We of the Bloc québécois are certain of one thing: we will never form the government in Ottawa. We are certain of that, and that may prevent us from having a ... But at the same time, we have a duty to follow our convictions to the end. I pity you somewhat.
That said, you are doing your job and we are doing ours. I will leave the floor to others so that they can add to this. The substantive issue must be understood. In trying to limit our right to speak, you are trying to pass this bill quickly. We don't agree with this manner of proceeding.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No. I have added my name to the list.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you not ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Someone was ahead of me on the list.
The Chairman: Ms Lalonde, followed by Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Perhaps I'll have a few things to add later on.
[English]
The Chairman: You've got to speak up for the young people.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm next.
[English]
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Let us keep in mind that we are debating a motion to limit the committee to discussing a clause for only five minutes. At the rate of five minutes per clause - there are 190 of them - that means a little more than 15 hours of debate. Compared to the cuts contemplated, that will not cost very much per minute, even though this is a very important issue.
I'm going to give you a few reasons why, in my view, we must consider each clause for much more than five minutes. Some clauses will likely require an hour or two of debate. It is therefore entirely natural for us to spend a great deal of time on the definitions.
First, I would like to address the issue of the 910 hours. Imagine that a worker previously had to work 300 hours, 15 hours a week for 20 weeks, to be eligible for unemployment insurance. It now takes 910, the equivalent of 26 35-hour weeks.
To understand all the implications of this phenomenon, we need more than five minutes of debate on the clause in question. It must be very clearly seen that young people are being systematically penalized. I hope that the new member for Lac-Saint-Jean will be able to speak on this aspect at one point because this could well drive a number of young people to despair.
I'm talking about people who do not necessarily have university degrees in fields where there are full-time jobs. For example, let's talk about people in applied technologies, people who have studied the fisheries, as the member for Halifax-West must know in his district.
A solution other than that provided by the act must be found for these young people. We must find a way so that there is no increase in penalties for young people. This is discrimination and we may well find ourselves facing court cases under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I made a commitment to my constituents. More than 10,000 persons in my riding signed a petition so that the bill would not be passed as drafted.
.2105
These people agreed that there should be a reform, but not a reform whose principle was from the outset that seasonal workers are poor workers, people who try to take advantage of the system, who want to work as little as possible.
You were on the committee when the people from Gaspé gave us examples. Among other things, they told us that there were 250 applicants for one job in Chandler and 75 for another job in Gaspé. It's like that everywhere.
Last year in Ontario, General Motors issued a call for applications and thousands of people came. Ultimately, no one was hired. It is therefore important to find an adequate solution to the problem of seasonal workers.
The government has not yet introduced any amendments to resolve this matter. If the government wished, it could make its reform acceptable to all regions.
Imagine that your benefits are going to be reduced by one percent each time you use unemployment insurance - it's like a sword of Damocles. This means that these people will reach 50 percent at the end of three years, whereas the amount of benefits to which they are entitled at the outset is 55 percent.
Under this bill, it is assumed that people do not want to work. We must therefore debate this principle and take the time to do so. It's not a five-minute debate per clause that will solve the problem.
For example, recommendations were made to us concerning clause 14. I counted 25 to 30 and I'm going to read a few to show you how important it is to spend time on this.
The Newfoundland Teachers' Association recommended amending clause 14 so as not to harm Newfoundland teachers with respect to benefits.
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union recommended eliminating the fixed period for computing benefits in favour of the method based on those weeks in which earnings were highest, which would have the effect of inducing claimants to work.
The Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec recommended amending the clause to establish weekly benefits by computing the average earnings for all hours of work, 700, for example, and applying the factor of 50 percent to an average 35-hour week.
[English]
The Chairman: We want to hear every single word you're saying. She's having problems with the interpretation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'll slow down, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the interpreters.
With respect to clause 14 alone, let us take the time to analyze properly the 25 proposals that were submitted to us so that we can determine which is the best and will do justice to the men and women of Quebec and Canada. I think they deserve our spending more than five minutes considering each one.
The clauses concerning the reduction in the maximum insurable earnings will take much more than five minutes. When you think that the government knowingly, willingly decided to reduce the insurable maximum from $43,000 to $39,000 and that it is losing $900 million in revenue as a result of that reduction, it is very difficult to agree to take only five minutes to resolve the situation because, in those areas where reform would result in surpluses, those surpluses would not be returned to claimants. The claimants under this plan find it very hard to accept this kind of decision.
We must also determine the impact of the measure to make people pay starting in the first hour. There are many people who will have to pay premiums, but who will never draw benefits. This is unacceptable.
Representations were made to us by, among others, those in the restaurant business, on the situation that students will be in. In the end, fewer jobs will be created. This is unacceptable for students and we must take the time to consider it properly.
.2110
The clauses concerning the economy's role as a regulator of the unemployment insurance plan must be considered separately because they will have an impact on other clauses of the bill.
Can we, in small increments of five minutes per clause, determine whether the clauses in question will enable the system to continue to have the effect it had in the past?
How can we ensure that, in the next recession, all the measures will enable us to avoid falling into an economic crisis like in the 1930s?
Let us remember that, when the unemployment insurance program and the welfare programs were established, their purpose was not solely to prevent people from starving to death, but also to develop a system that would make it possible to sustain consumption and economic activity during economic downturns.
Consequently, we cannot consider the unemployment insurance reform in isolation. We must absolutely be able to see, collectively, how the act will operate after it is passed.
We were speaking earlier of the various definitions in clause 2. It is important to see them in relation to others such as the notions of ``insurable employment'', ``benefits'' and ``employed claimant''. These are all elements that have a combined effect. If we ever developed a less effective system, we would be creating major social problems and would not achieve the anticipated result.
In my electoral district of Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup alone, which contains the RCMs of Kamouraska, Rivière-du-loup, Les Basques and part of Témiscouata, the reform will have a negative effect in the order of $10 million next year.
In the Lower St. Lawrence region as a whole, which includes my riding plus those of Rimouski - Témiscouata and Matapédia - Matane, the impact will be more than $20 million.
When you remove $20 million from a region's economy, it's not only the people who receive the cheques who are penalized, but also the corner stores, the people who rent videos, the merchants, all those who live from the money that circulates in the region.
In economic terms, there will be a significant after-effect because more people will be living on welfare.
According to the assessment by the Minister of Employment of Quebec, 30,000 more families will receive social assistance in the current year alone as a result of unemployment insurance changes. At the same time, the program will create surpluses of more than $5 billion.
Isn't this situation scandalous? Shouldn't we spend more than five minutes per clause to prevent this situation from occurring? We're talking about a cash surplus of $5 billion and 13,000 more households on welfare in Quebec alone.
This probably means that, for Canada as a whole, 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 more families will be on welfare, while, on the other hand, we accumulate surpluses.
Last week, the Minister himself, Mr. Young, told Mr. Martin in speaking to journalists that it might perhaps be time for the surplus to be capped and premiums reduced.
We can't analyze these kinds of proposals in five minutes. They have to be put before us. We have to be able to check to seek whether the amendment will make significant changes.
These clauses are not automatically interrelated. They must be analyzed as a whole, something that cannot be done in five minutes.
Another reason why we can't spend just five minutes on each of the clauses is that many groups have not yet been heard. People from everywhere across Canada have written to tell us that it is important they be heard, that they have recommendations to make to us.
We have to pay particular attention to those recommendations, which have not yet been put before us, but which must be taken into account. All these groups have told us that the reform was important, but that the bill could not be passed in its present form and that the government must withdraw it.
If the government wants its bill to be acceptable to the public, it must take the time to debate it. This is the democratic place where we can do so. If we do not do it here, the public will react and show its dissatisfaction in other ways. That could result in violence and other unacceptable social behaviour.
.2115
I'm going to tell you a heart-rending story that I heard at the end of the demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup. A young woman of 25 or 30 carrying an Acadian flag in her hands came to see us on the podium. She told us, ``I have a story to tell you.'' All the speakers had finished their speeches and the young lady stepped up to the microphone and spoke of the consequences of what Messrs. Chrétien and Young are doing.
She told us about her brother who committed suicide last year because of an unemployment insurance matter and about her spouse who committed suicide a month and a half ago for the same reason. You may be sure that, after hearing such stories, we are not prepared to allow anyone to tell us that there will only be five minutes to consider each clause.
The government appears to have forgotten one other factor. Why should we agree to debate for only five minutes when there was no debate on second reading? This bill was never analyzed and considered in the House. The citizens of Quebec and Canada never had the opportunity to see the situation as a whole. They saw the government advertising on television, they heard it on the radio and, on the other hand, they heard community groups' explanations about the reform.
I'm going to give you an example. In Abitibi, people from the coalition presented the content of the reform to unemployed workers. The workers told us that those who made the presentation were unionists who were only defending their views. They wanted more information. They went looking for the departmental official and sat him down in the room. He told them the same thing as the union representatives. At that point, they realized it made no sense.
So if workers were able to spend half an hour, an hour, an hour and a half or two hours trying to understand the consequences of the reform, are we going to be disrespectful of them by not allowing enough time to consider the bill?
In democratic terms, our behaviour will not earn us the better opinion of our fellow citizens. Last weekend, at the demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup, people asked me: ``Paul, do you think demonstrating will do anything? Do you think there is any way to do something?'' There are even some who said that this was not the way they were going to do it, but rather by closing the road and breaking windows. I defended law and order by telling them that we first had to exhaust all democratic means.
I told them that, with their support and that of the 10,000 persons who had signed the petition, I now had the strength to go tell the committee that we were going to change things.
[English]
The Chairman: Excuse me. Mr. Crête's delivering his point of view on this particular issue. Can we keep the conversation down to minimum level? I want to hear what he has to say.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that the people who elected us as members and the others asked us to come to the committee to ensure that the reform is the best possible reform for them and for all Canadians. No one told me he did not want reform. They all want it, but on acceptable conditions.
Certain clauses, such as those on insurable earnings and appeal rights, are important. There are questions that arise concerning the issue of seasonal workers and the 900 hours, and they are very significant.
We have not yet considered the clause concerning the monitoring that should be provided by the Commission sur le fonctionnement ... This must be very clear. The act must provide for reports so that Parliament is regularly informed about the reform's harmful effects because we must not find ourselves in two or three years facing effects that were not foreseen by anyone and that have highly negative effects on social programs.
We want to reduce the costs relating to imprisonment and violence. The best way to prevent these situations is for there to be jobs and for people to have acceptable living conditions. Many of these elements are contained in the reform that is before us. We must study these effects and see where we are headed.
.2120
We must also examine employment and regional economic diversification programs. In the regions, people are very concerned by the changes that could have a negative effect. They said: ``The act has been around for 20 or 25 years. Various amendments have been made to it as a result of which a way of life has developed in our regions. Now they want to change it overnight, saying that they will no longer give us the right to unemployment insurance, but there won't be any more jobs.'' This is absolutely crazy. This is not how we should operate.
Instead, there must be economic diversification programs that will make it possible to develop winter tourism, industries and new technologies in seasonal regions such as my own. The independent workers assistance program should be expanded so that industries can be developed and people can be given more time to become part of that program.
Many elements of the five programs provided for by the act require careful reflection. With respect to the transitional assistance and job creation program, we realize there is an aberration there. The Canada Employment Centres used to be able to make decisions on a large number of employment projects and had a highly decentralized approach. Each employment centre could make very important adjustments.
Now, under the job creation assistance program, the Minister's signature is required each time a community job is created. Waiting periods of two or three weeks have grown to two or three months. How could this decision have been made? It suggests that things will be this way in future. The Minister must receive applications ad nauseam. Thus, in considering the bill, we must see how this could be organized in another way.
The question of judging abusers is another factor in favour of allowing more than five minutes per clause. It is an easy electoral argument to say that people generally take advantage of the system and that if stricter conditions are set and the people who take advantage of unemployment insurance penalized, it is because they are abusers. According to today's demonstration, about four percent of people are abusers.
I challenge you to say that there is not an equivalent number of cheats under the Income Tax Act and Bank Act. Perhaps it should even be determined whether there are legal means that are not accessible to workers. Something could be added to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would grant income tax deductions to people who work much less. This is done for the banks, which contribute $80,000, $100,000 or $200,000 to the coffers of a political party, and that is perfectly legal. There really are some factors to consider in this area.
Is it a good strategic decision to wage a more intensive war on abusers? Isn't the solution to give people the means to act legally, acceptably? Clandestine work does not develop simply as a result of dishonesty. This is what matters come to when we have a system that is so regulated that each time we take a step to the left or the right, we find ourselves doing something illegal. This is a very difficult situation to assess.
I'll give you another example, that raised by the Fédération des femmes du Québec and by a group from Ontario. These groups asked whether this reform would not have an effect of systemic discrimination against women. An analysis such as this requires much more than five minutes.
The bill must be seen as a whole. If after the bill is passed, a complaint reached the Supreme Court and, in its judgment, the Court held that the act resulted in systemic discrimination, the Government of Canada, whatever it might be, would be in a bind. A critical analysis must therefore be conducted of it.
.2125
This is a factor that makes me think. If we spend only five minutes on each of the clauses, we won't be able to do a good job.
When a major change is made in the system, switching from a weeks-based system to an hours-based system for the calculation, that forces us to conduct a more detailed assessment, because, at that point, we are taking a leap into complete darkness. We are ahead of the rest of the world. There is no other country in the world that has switched from a weeks-based system to an hours-based system, and that will have effects of all kinds.
We must therefore ensure that the administration of the act is monitored and adjusted in accordance with common sense. At the same time, however, the people who pass this act must ensure that it has a certain credibility. If there is no consensus on it, society will have to make political choices. If there is no social acceptance of the bill, the battle will flare up again the next morning and everyone will try to prove he is right.
We must therefore be able to ensure that it is sufficiently precise and operational.
One of the last factors I would like to raise concerns the problem involved in spending only five minutes considering each of the clauses. The new Unemployment Insurance Act amends a number of other statutes. In my view, the title is bad, and I believe there could have been a good debate onclause 1. I'm convinced that, after considering it, especially if we can spend more than five minutes on it, we will realize that there is no unemployment insurance in it.
We cannot guarantee a person who pays benefits that he will ultimately have a job. That's not what the act states. The act states that if you pay premiums, you will have benefits if you meet certain requirements. Nowhere is it said that there will be a guaranteed job for people who pay premiums. This is product misrepresentation. It's somewhat as though the name Cadillac was put on a Volkswagen Beetle. This is the kind of situation that corresponds with nothing real.
We must be very much aware that this bill amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act and a large number of new terminologies that refer to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and it will in some way amend Bills C-93 and C-96. There are thus a large number of factors that must be taken into consideration.
It therefore seems to me that the motion to limit debate to five minutes per clause is inadmissible. This cannot be done in this manner. There are certainly clauses that might take only a minute or two, but there are others, including those on the list I have given, for which discussions of a half hour, one hour or two hours are possible. The impact of this act is very great.
When I return to my riding, people will not tell me I spent too much time considering the Unemployment Insurance Act, that I wasted my time as a legislator by taking the time to consider the clauses of the act one by one.
The government's attitude is a bit Marxist. They're saying: ``Let's let the situation deteriorate as much as possible. In any case, let's pass the bill as it stands and we'll live with the consequences.''
.2130
I would like to compare this situation to another true situation which should give the present government food for thought. That is the question of Canada Post Corporation.
For a number of years, the former Conservative government went ahead at full speed with its program to close post offices. It though it knew the absolute truth. It thought that everyone agreed with it. It relied on polls based on somewhat crazy questions.
This ultimately had a major impact on the results of the 1993 election. I believe that, with the unemployment insurance reform, the present government risks finding itself in the same situation if it does not take the time to judge the quality of the amendments.
I am going to take the liberty of speaking about three amendments that the Liberals introduced last week: the amendment requiring that the last 26 weeks be taken into account, the amendment providing that the divisor credit may adhere more closely to the unemployment rate plus two weeks and the amendment concerning the people who would be excluded from the intensity rule. Do you think we could resolve all the issues that each of these amendments raises in five minutes?
With respect to the amendment regarding the 26 weeks, it was the anger caused in Atlantic Canada as a whole over the impact of such a measure that led to its tabling.
It was a very great insult and dishonour for the public to be told: ``The calculation will be based on the last 16 weeks, whether you worked or not.'' This is a purely mathematical, bureaucratic and financial calculation and no assessment has been made of the impact such a measure would have on human beings.
While the dissatisfaction with the reform has successfully been allayed, major changes are still necessary. When you tell someone: ``You were receiving a salary of $500 and, according to this calculation, you will receive only $200, $125 or $150 in benefits,'' that person's income is affected.
As far as needs are concerned, we're not talking about satisfaction with oneself and community recognition, but about bread, butter and peanut butter. Will parents be able to buy clothing for the children this summer or winter? They'll wonder how they'll be able to pay their grocery bills.
They'll receive a smaller cheque than a welfare cheque, even though they exhausted themselves working 12, 15 or 18 weeks during the summer.
Thus, a close analysis must be conducted of the amendment that will make it possible to base benefits on 26 weeks because there will be short weeks during that period. Some individuals will have worked a good 10 weeks at 20 hours a week. They will be short 20 weeks because they will have worked only five or six hours a week over the last two weeks. And they will be penalized as a result.
So many aspects remain to be considered. We will have to find ways to improve things. As it currently stands, this reform is not acceptable.
I would also like to talk about Mr. Regan's amendment respecting the divisor credit. This amendment will have the effect - and the Liberals say so in their advertising - of encouraging people to work two more weeks.
However, there are industries, such as the fishing industry, where workers are entitled to work only 10 weeks. It will therefore be difficult to add two more weeks because fishermen will be in an illegal position under the Fisheries Act. This may become a little complicated.
If you can't do more, two more weeks will be added in computing your benefits, which will reduce them in the same way.
Corrective measures must be found that are fairer and more honest for citizens and, even though we can admit we have made an effort, that effort is insufficient in relation to people's current situation.
This must be addressed in a comprehensive debate on the intensity rule. The government must be aware that this is a great obstacle in the bill and that there may still be solutions that can be found to make the reform acceptable.
As to the third amendment, I would like to explain why it is important that we take more than five minutes to address it. This concerns the intensity rule.
.2135
Someone whose family income is $27,000 or $28,000 will wonder: ``What am I going to do? Since I'm just above the standard, I'm no longer entitled to an increase in my benefits.''
If this person receives $27,000, he will fall to 55 percent and to 50 percent if he is seasonal, whereas, if he had earned only $25,000 in income, family income would be taken into account and he could tell his wife: ``I would prefer you stay at home and take care of the children.'' However, she in turn could say: ``Yes, but I like working; I like to get out.'' He will answer: ``Yes, but if we do that, we'll have less money in the end and we'll be in an abnormal situation.'' This is another point that must be adjusted and more carefully reviewed.
Thus, the bill as a whole requires far more than five minutes of debate per clause. If we discuss motions such as these in a regular and continuous manner, we may still be here in three weeks, but each time we find a way to increase the train's speed in order to get to the station sooner, even if the cars in the rear are shaken off the back, we won't solve anything. If, on the other hand, we take the time to consider the bill carefully ...
You were very impressed by the time we took to discuss the definitions clause. I may have said it too often, but it is nevertheless a very important clause. The entire structure of the bill is contained in the definitions and it is entirely natural to take a great deal of time to try to understand how it will work.
Definitions have been added to the bill that take technological changes into account. Certain definitions were added in good faith by officials in order to make the act more palatable, more comprehensible, but these definitions may also have often harmful effects: consider the definition of ``affidavit'', for example.
It was a good idea to add to the definitions section so that the same meaning would be used throughout the bill thus simplifying its interpretation, but does this definition take into account all relevant factors? It is important to fully understand that, from the moment a definition is inserted in the act, the definitions of the old act no longer have force of law and this could result in changes in behaviour. These changes could be favourable and positive, but we have to be able to analyze them, to assess them and we have only begun to do our job in this area.
I would like to recall what I said about clause 5 regarding the definition of ``insurable employment''. This is a complete clause. We must therefore take the time to consider it carefully.
The same applies to the definition of employer. This definition provides:
- ``employer'' includes a person who has been an employer and, in respect of remuneration of an
individual referred to as sponsor or co-ordinator of a project in paragraph 4(1)(e), it includes
that individual.
We will be heading toward this over the next five, 10 and 15 years. There will be increasing numbers of self-employed workers, people who will not necessarily be employees and who will not pay premiums. However, if these people do not contribute to the unemployment insurance program, they will not receive benefits in the end. That may seem less costly for the state, but it will result in other costs.
There are also effects on provincial policies. For example, a tradesman or an artist who works as a self-employed worker and is not insurable can easily find himself on welfare. This will have a cost that will be reflected in the federal government's transfer expenditures.
The act thus contains an element to which we cannot close our eyes. We must find a solution, find a way to live with these changes so that we are not forced to pass a new act in 15 years to address a situation that existed at the outset. There are many factors of this kind to which we must devote more time.
.2140
I would like us to consider the fact that we are still receiving a great deal of information at the last minute. Today, this is very good information. I am willing to understand that this information could not be transmitted to us earlier, but it only concerns improved assistance services to claimants and the stricter penalties applied to abusers. Some of these aspects must be thoroughly reviewed.
We may applaud the increased penalties against abusive employers. We may wonder whether more thorough analysis must be conducted on this aspect, something that was not done sooner because we did not have the figures. If we devoted all our energies to the struggle against abusive employers - I'm not talking about employers in general - wouldn't we solve ... If we introduced into the act ways of conducting an intensive fight against abusive employers, wouldn't the economic and social effects be much greater than those of the hunt for individual unemployed workers, for people who are in violation of the act on minor aspects?
In my riding, we recently had a very concrete example of an employer, an owner of four or five companies, who was caught and whose employees will be penalized and have to pay fines. According to the interpretations I was given, the employer often threatened to lay off an employee if he did not adopt the conduct or operating method imposed on him. We must therefore examine what happens in real life.
Take the case of a woman who is solely responsible for a family. She must either accept this employer's ground rules or go home and lose her job. The choice may be a hard one. One person can say that, if she operates illegally, her behaviour will nevertheless be legitimate.
The real guilty party in the case I am citing held a position higher up in the pyramid. It would perhaps be interesting to take a closer look at these situations. However, we have not had the opportunity to do so before today because new conditions have been brought to our attention.
I would like to cite another example which I find interesting. It concerns the summary of the document that was submitted to us today. It states that, under the claimant services budget, the investment budget, the sum of $800 million will always be available. However, during 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, the budget will fall from $200 million to $175 million in the first year and from $400 million to $380 million in the second year. Where will this money come from and who will pay for the $25 million reduction in the first year? Will it come from the transitional fund provided for Quebec? From the transitional fund provided for the Maritimes?
Won't our unemployed workers whose number of weeks of probation will increase and whose benefits will decrease and who have been promised transitional programs to cope with the situation have the rug pulled out from underneath their feet? We are telling them that there won't quite be as much money as provided in the budget. We are thus cancelling part of the possible effect of economic diversification.
One of the final points I would like to raise concerns the fact that the job creation hoped for with passage of this bill is not very much in evidence. We have come back to the strategic option of enhancing people's employability, but we do not have many opportunities for increasing employment for those who do not necessarily have the means to increase their employability. I am thinking of workers 45 to 55 years of age who have already worked 20 to 25 years for the same employer, who have only a primary or secondary school education, who have learned on the job and who suddenly find themselves unemployed. What measures are contained in bill to address the situations of these workers?
Are there really clauses in the bill that will enable us to find solutions to their problems and enable them to be treated as human beings, to develop their potential? These aren't people who can enter the productivity race, but they have a contribution to make to the system. Their experience may enable them to offer a specific form of expertise and perhaps to start up a business in the trades. All these aspects must be properly analyzed.
I hope that all the arguments I have put forward and those raised by Mr. Dubé will find takers among certain majority members. The five-minute limit per clause seems to me completely unacceptable. It will not enable us to conduct a thorough investigation of the issues the bill raises. We will be forced to agree to clauses quickly. Others will be acceptable and still other more or less acceptable will go into the grinder at the same time.
.2145
All this means we must absolutely fight this motion and stand it so that we can ultimately return to more serious and more thorough consideration. We must therefore take the time to consider each of the clauses.
We are members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. This is part of our work. We are sitting until the twenty-first and there is no reason to move precipitously. We have the opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis of the bill and be satisfied with the work we have done. What Quebeckers and Canadians want is unemployment insurance reform that will truly correspond to genuine needs and that will not be limited by budgetary cuts. We cannot ignore the fact that the difficulty we find ourselves in today stems from this.
If we were not in a system in which it is necessary to afford the Minister of Finance the opportunity to make billions of dollars in cuts, today we would not be forced to conduct such a reform.
If, on Friday or Saturday, Mr. Young had been able to make the Minister of Finance speak and if he had managed to make the Prime Minister speak on various options, today we would be proceeding with a more adequate reform because we have no financial problems with regard to unemployment insurance.
This bill occupies my entire mind. I live with it 24 hours a day.
Ms Lalonde: We all do.
Mr. Crête: How can we resolve the issue of control of the fund? This is a problem that was raised on numerous occasions by witnesses, not only by the union representatives, but repeatedly by employers, the representatives of independent business and the Conseil du patronat du Québec. They all told us to find a way to do it. In Quebec, there are models such as the CSST, the SQDM and several others, and there are some in the English-speaking provinces as well. There are many models.
I will take the liberty of drawing a parallel. If the federal government managed, throughMr. Young, to create NAV CANADA, a firm that will provide air traffic control services in Canada and will have representatives from each group in the sector, and if there is a consensus on this vote, why isn't that possible with respect to unemployment insurance? Why would it not still be possible to find an identical solution with respect to unemployment insurance, when there are large, small and medium-size employers and individual contributors who can be represented by unionists or represent themselves?
There could be a solution here. It is the committee's responsibility to develop something in this connection. It would be interesting if, with a mandate such as this, the Minister gave us carte blanche and told the committee: ``Develop a solution, make us a proposal so that the fund is properly managed in future.'' That would be constructive.
However, that's not a five-minute job, I can guarantee you. It would take us a few hours, a few days and perhaps even a few weeks to find a solution. After that, however, once the problem was solved, once we had the solution before us, we would be all right. They could manage the fund and the government would no longer be in the situation in which it finds itself with its social obligations and its financial constraints. It could review itself properly and see where there are cuts to be made in its actual spending, while enabling those to make contributions to the fund to govern it properly.
There are examples that show you that five minutes per clause is an idea that must be forgotten. We must find a way of spending more time considering the clauses. Soon we will have spent more time debating this idea than debating the merits of the bill. And if there were a lesson to be learned from this situation, it would be that the more dilatory motions there are preventing us from addressing the merits of the question, the less we will settle the matter and the more we will want to return to the merits.
In any case, the majority will be able to say that the opposition parties had the opportunity to debate every point that they had to debate on the issue. As for us, we will have had the opportunity to put forward our arguments. Democracy will out and we will be able to see whether some of our arguments may ultimately have led to better solutions.
.2150
Mr. Chairman, I hope I have convinced the members of the relevance of what I have said and I reserve my other arguments for later.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
I recognize Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Perhaps this motion will enable us to talk about substance with our colleagues opposite and show them that we can't do better work with five-minute discussions.
I don't know whether you are aware of it, but, for my part, the first time I realized it, I was astounded. The Minister of Finance would have no problem if the bill were not passed this year. It must be understood that, this year, the reform will cost the unemployment insurance account$1 billion. That is not a small amount. This year, with the reform, there will be $1 billion less. It is important to add that to the remarks Paul Crête has just made.
Why has the government not decided to work toward real reform? Personally, I was expecting that we could discuss real reform in this committee. We know we need to convince you, that this is the only opportunity we have to convince you, that it is necessary to bring in another type of reform.
After hearing both employers and opposition groups, and after working hard enough in the negotiations and in the collaborative efforts, I am certain there was an intention to exercise downward pressure on wages and to increase working hours. I see no other explanation except that the only reason why this bill was tabled was that there was a desire to address seasonal work. As no solution had been found, there was a desire to reform the entire system while minimizing events.
Perhaps the members opposite would not be able to do that, but they could try to understand our arguments. Without the unemployment insurance reform, there would be a billion dollars more in the fund. I checked with the officials. When you look at the documents from the Department of Human Resources Development, you see written in small letters at the bottom of the page:
- Since premiums are collected on the basis of maximum weekly earnings of $750, as presented
in Bill C-112, anticipated premiums should reach $18 billion and the accumulated surplus at
the end of 1996 will be approximately $4.5 billion, whereas under the reform, revenues will be
$19.8 billion and the cumulative amount $5.5 billion.
- The reform thus reduces the fund by $1 billion. Why?
Why don't we take the time to introduce real reform instead of the one we are working on?
.2155
I'm going to show you that it isn't by devoting only five minutes to each clause that we can do a serious job together in committee and understand why, for example, one of the researchers who did research for you and who agreed on part of the proposals said, which really struck me: ``It's a leap in the dark.'' This reform clearly is a leap in the dark. No country in the world has switched from a weeks-based system to an hours-based system.
After hearing that comment, I took another look at all the provisions of the reform. And I can tell you that it takes more than five minutes, because all the provisions of the reform tend to favour people who have two jobs, not only those who have two jobs, but also those who have two part-time jobs and those who work overtime.
I find it is important to convince you that the reform makes no sense because one of its main consequences is to encourage people to work as much as possible, whereas we are trying in this country, on the contrary, to develop employment policies to reduce work time and to share work.
What are the consequences of the government's reform proposal? The government's reform proposal favours a person who has two jobs. That person is favoured when he finds himself unemployed. Is this normal? In the period we are currently experiencing, where the problem of employment is so serious, how can we accept the internal logic of this bill which favours those who have two jobs?
It seems to me we need more than five minutes to ask questions, to obtain answers and to discuss the issues. I'm not certain, moreover, that the members opposite want to support an anti-employment bill.
You may also wonder why we sovereigntists want to improve the bill. We have a good reason, and that is that it affects the lives of ordinary people in a significant way. And it will also affect the economy in a significant way, as it will affect women, young people and people who have left the job market.
If the committee had all the latitude to examine the reform, which would take more than five minutes, it would first have to consider why maximum insurable earnings must be reduced. Why should someone earning $42,400 not pay unemployment insurance premiums? Why is it only people earning a maximum salary of $39,000 who would have to pay unemployment insurance premiums? Why?