EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 25, 1996

.1209

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

As you know, since the last sitting there have been some developments in relation to Bill C-12.

.1210

We received an order from the House. I would like to read it to you so we all understand what we're dealing with. It is a motion moved by Mr. Young and seconded by Mr. Manley:

``That in relation to Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, not more than 10 further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee stage of the bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.''

That was approved and voted upon by the House; therefore it's an order to this committee to follow these guidelines.

Now of course we have to decide how we're going to deal with this particular matter. We understand that we have ten hours to deal with it, starting right now. I would like to ask the members to decide exactly how we're going to deal with this matter.

Right at the moment we're debating a motion by Mr. Proud that would basically limit debate per Clause to five minutes. That's where we are now. But in view of the fact that this order has been received, I would think the members of the committee may rethink some of their thoughts and strategies, if you will, in order that we can properly deal with this bill as efficiently and in as fair a manner as possible.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): I would seek unanimous consent to withdraw my motion ofApril 23.

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): We are pleased to note that you are coming around to our arguments.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, okay. I guess now we can move back to Clause-by-Clause, so get your books out and get ready. We have ten hours.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, we do have ten hours. We'd certainly like to know the wishes of the committee, especially of the opposition, about question period and whether there's an interest in recessing for question period. If we do that, obviously we'll have to add the time on to make up the ten hours.

We started roughly at noon, so the ten hours will expire at 10 o'clock, but if we break for question period, then we will more than likely sit until 11:30. The government side is not opposed to recessing for question period, if that's the interest of the members, if in fact there's some progress. If there's no progress, then obviously we would be unwilling to recess. We would continue on through question period until the ten hours expire.

Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that Mr. Nault has raised that particular question, because I was wondering how we might proceed, given that we have other parliamentary responsibilities, and these do occur throughout the course of the day.

Is it the intention of the government to have one continuous session to fulfil the ten-hour obligation, or indeed would we have an opportunity to break it out? For example, we have question period coming up in an hour and 45 minutes. We could do an hour now, come back and perhaps do three hours, maybe do three hours tomorrow and then complete the obligation on Monday. Then it will have been fulfilled by the 10 o'clock p.m. deadline of April 29, which is Monday night.

The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the committee, but judging from some conversations that have been held with all parties, I think it is the intention of the government to complete the entire bill by tonight or early tomorrow morning. By that I mean one o'clock or two o'clock a.m. That's what I'm talking about.

Does that reflect the view of the government, Mr. Nault?

Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our intent is to continue until the order is fulfilled.

.1215

Mrs. Brown: Do you feel that is a productive and responsible approach to the bill, that we do ten continuous hours without really having any kind of break at all? In terms of concentration and being able to ask reasonable questions without being so exhausted, do you not feel that there might be some validity or usefulness in perhaps having some reasonable break today and then completing it tomorrow?

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, the impression I got from what Mr. Nault stated is that in fact the government is willing to have a break, and the break would be during question period. Above and beyond that, there was no suggestion made about any further breaks. You can deal with this matter, but that's my understanding.

Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the intent of the government and the majority side in this committee. It's also the intent not to break at question period if there's no movement made at all. By that I mean that if we're still on Clause 2 by question period and are still talking about defining definitions, then we have no intention of breaking at question period.

The argument Mrs. Brown makes doesn't hold a lot of validity when we sat through the whole night just a day or so ago. Talking about losing your concentration, that's about as far as you're going to get when it comes to frustration, and of course physical exhaustion, having to sit up all night listening to someone filibuster a bill that's very important to Canadians.

Our intention is, if there is cooperation in this committee, to allow for a break. If not, the government side is going to go straight through.

The Chairman: I want to resolve this as quickly as possible because as we debate this the clock is ticking and we're using up our ten hours. I want to resolve this right away.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): I am extremely disappointed, more than disappointed. In my opinion, this is a breach in the relations we had been maintaining.

We read in the newspaper that the minister, Mr. Young, had said that it was all settled, that everything was decided and there would be no further amendments. This confirms the meaning of the parliamentary work that ought to be done here. We see no objection to sitting today, but we would like to go to the oral question period.

[English]

The Chairman: The point Mr. Nault was making is... You know the point already. Basically -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I would like to make a brief comment. Mr. Nault's remarks adopt a punitive approach: if everything goes the way he wants, he will allow us to go to question period; and if everything does not go the way he wants, he is going to continue. He has not yet understood that it is his attitude that brought about the change in the tone of the debates. I urge him to re-examine his attitude because if he intends to continue in this way when the proceedings resume, it is as if he were summoning us to battle.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we spend a little bit too much time in this committee talking about people's attitudes and what have you. That's fine; I think everybody has been very clear on how they feel about one another. But when I accepted to become chair of this committee, I accepted only because I thought we could, through this legislation, really bring about positive change to people's lives and the people who unfortunately are unemployed in our country. I still want that to remain the spirit.

So keeping those people who need unemployment insurance in mind, we have to decide how we're going to use these next ten hours. We've all expressed very eloquently our points of view on that particular issue, but now we have less than ten hours to deal with this. What do you want to do? Do you want to talk about Mr. Nault, or do we want to get talking about the real issues of the day, in this Clause-by-Clause we need to go through?

.1220

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We were talking about process.

Mr. Crête: It is interesting to hear you talk about the contribution that must be made, but in light of the minister's statement that there will be no further amendments on the majority side, it seems that over the next ten hours only one side will be contributing. The other side of the table has decided to close its books. I have no problem in continuing the debate since I have some things to say and to declare. I think we should get on with the substance.

We have a lot of things to look at, and I don't think the previous debates have been useless since they have generated a bank of information on what should be amended. I hope that the government side will continue its contribution, even if it has the minister's dictum.

Mrs. Lalonde: You were speaking about the process of the proceedings. It seems to me that we should determine whether we are going to the question period or not. As to the rest, I said we were prepared to sit for as long as necessary in order to finish.

[English]

The Chairman: Basically what we're going to do is this: If there's going to be progress made, we have over 100 Clauses to go through that we need to address quickly; if there's no progress, then we can't take a break. We only have ten hours to work on this particular piece of legislation, and we have to do it today. There isn't as much latitude as we believe.

What I'm saying is, do you want to move right to Clause-by-Clause and start debating issues, or...?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Let's put an end to the ``ifs'', ``perhaps'' and threats, which are becoming tiresome; let's decide to begin right now, without losing further time, and go to question period. The parliamentary secretary should withdraw his ``if'' and let's agree clearly among ourselves that we will go to question period, and come back here at 3:00 p.m. and continue our proceedings.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a good way to start. I think we almost had an agreement in terms of standing down Clause 2 and dealing with it at the end of the discussions. I would suggest, if we have agreement from the other parties, that we start on Clause 3 and get moving.

The Chairman: Going to Clause 3...there is no agreement on that.

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Chairman, I think to say that the suggestion that we would not adjourn for question period unless there was progress would be a threat of some sort and is inaccurate. What we have to think about here is are we going to be here until the wee hours of the morning? If adjourning for an hour and a half means we'll be here until the wee hours because we aren't moving very well, then obviously I think most of us would not prefer to do that. On the other hand, if in fact we see there's movement so that we can perhaps expect to be here until some time this evening and not into the morning, then we might feel differently. So I think it's reasonable to put that forward and not reasonable to look at it as a threat.

The Chairman: I don't think anybody is threatening anybody here, we're just trying to... Look, I just want you to know that we've spent the first 20 minutes trying to figure out how we're going to operate.

It's your choice, but personally - and I'm on the record on this - I think we should move on to Clause-by-Clause. I think that's what the people of Canada would want us to do. That's my recommendation, and if anybody wants to challenge the chair, you're more than welcome.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Will we go to question period? It will delay us by only one hour. Since you have the majority, you are fully guaranteed that at the end of the ten hours of work of this committee, you will be the ones deciding. We are simply asking that we go to question period.

.1225

You know that when all is said and done you are going to adopt the bill as is. It's armour-tight. That's enough. After slapping us in the face, you don't need to grind your heel into us as well. We are asking only one thing: to go to question period. We are prepared to sit without stopping until it is over. In any event, the newspaper says we can't change anything.

[English]

The Chairman: If you want to address this in a formal way, you can introduce a motion and we can have a vote on it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I propose that we go to question period and that we sit afterwards.

[English]

The Chairman: Does everybody understand what the motion is?

Mr. Clerk, maybe you can read it.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mrs. Lalonde proposes to adjourn the sitting to go to question period.

[English]

The Chairman: The motion is on the table. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I move to table this motion.

The Chairman: It's already done. Madame Lalonde has done that already.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I see no objection to his presenting a motion; it is not the same thing.

The clerk: If he does not return, present your motion.

Mrs. Lalonde: To go to question period?

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to withdraw your motion?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: If he hasn't presented a motion, I have. There is no doubt about it; you even asked me if I was doing so. Yes, it is on the table.

[English]

The Chairman: There you go.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, your colleague just tabled the motion. Is this not getting to the height of -

The Chairman: He moved to table.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No, after Mrs. Lalonde.

[English]

Mrs. Brown: You moved to table. It's ridiculous. What's wrong with you?

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, Mr. Regan, if you want to carry on a conversation without going through the chair you're going to do it outside, not here.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Madame Lalonde has a motion. Is there discussion?

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the translation is being lost when I speak. It seems to me that the opposition has difficulty when I make some comments.

I've laid the government side's position on the table, quite frankly. We sat through question period yesterday; I didn't see the opposition ask to recess for question period yesterday. Did you? No, we didn't. We sat basically through the whole process, and the night before, if you recall, we did the same thing. So we've missed one question period in the last two days. We sat all through the night and nobody over on the other side said we're exhausted, we're going to be up all night, we need to take a break.

Now the opposition comes and has some major complaints that they'd like to go to question period. I'll see if I can be very clear on this. The government will not agree to break for question period unless we see some movement. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, why should the government stay up until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. to deal with the government's business when in fact there's absolutely no cooperation from the opposition side?

We should move relatively swiftly in the next hour and a half and get some things on the table. If there are particular Clauses they have a problem with, we can stand them down and continue to move down the road to get some of these Clauses dealt with. If we do nothing between now and question period, I don't see why these members should sit up until 3 a.m. so they can go to the show, which is what question period is in most cases anyway, as far as I'm concerned.

So that's basically the analysis. That's the position of the government. It's not a threat; it's just reality. The problem with Mrs. Brown is that she thinks everything is a threat, Mr. Chairman. I said at the very beginning of this process that if we didn't get any cooperation as a government, we'd bring in closure. We did. It wasn't a threat. It's reality.

Negotiation, Mr. Chairman, is a two-way street. As an old negotiator, I'm telling you that this is the position of this side. We will go to question period if we see some movement. If not, then we'll just...

The Chairman: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Nault.

We have a motion on the table by Madame Lalonde. I think the discussion has taken place. I just want to move now to the vote.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We are not the ones who are wasting time.

Mr. Crête: We have nothing further to say.

.1230

[English]

Motion negatived

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Four members voted. Ms Augustine did not vote.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, if you're challenging the count, we will do it again. All those in favour of the motion. Now I see four hands. How many do you see? All those against the motion. I see one, two, three, four, five. Five is greater than four. The motion has been defeated.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question? When a motion is made to table a motion, what happens normally? Mr. Regan moved to table that motion of Madame Lalonde's. You ignored that. Why? I don't understand. Could you explain that to me?

The Chairman: What he said is really inconsequential to the fact that Madame Lalonde has tabled the motion and moved the motion, and we need to get on with the vote. I don't understand what Mr. Regan tabled.

Mrs. Brown: When you table a motion, does it not just get taken off the table indefinitely?

The Chairman: No. Do we want to talk about tabling motions now?

Mrs. Brown: No. Procedurally, I was just very unclear as to -

The Chairman: I think what has happened here that I think is really important is the fact that for the first half hour of these hearings we've been talking about procedure and we haven't dealt with any Clauses of the bill. That's the procedure that is really important to me. I'm losing my patience, quite frankly, because we've had hard-working officials here for many days, going through day and night, and we have not used their talents to the utmost. For a committee that goes under the title of Human Resources Development, I think we ought to begin to use the human resources potential of the people who work for us a little better.

We're going to move to Clause-by-Clause, and we're going to start with Clause 2. As you recall, we were talking about definitions for a number of hours, so I guess that's where we'll start. Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Initially, when the discussion was on the definitions, the expert witnesses were asked several times where such definitions as ``affidavit'', ``employment'', etc. were located. Have they had time to do some research to determine whether the insertion of these new definitions has had any significant impact?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, the opposition had asked for a couple of areas of the bill to be looked at. We're still doing the research on that, and we hope to have it for them very soon. One is the issue of affidavits, and I think the other one is documents. We will have that for them some time soon.

The Chairman: I guess that answers that question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Before third reading?

[English]

Mr. Nault: I don't know that at this point. We'll see what we can do.

The Chairman: It will be given to you within a reasonable time. We're going to start again with the issue of definitions. Do we have the officials here? Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: It was my understanding that Clause 2 would be examined only at the end. Is this the case? Is a motion needed?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Has one been proposed? Didn't someone begin to speak to that effect?

.1235

[English]

Mr. Easter: I thought that was the agreement we were working on the other day: that Clause 2 would stand down until we're done with the rest and then we'd come back to it, so I would say yes.

The Chairman: Is that the impression of everyone around the table?

[Translation]

Voices: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, good.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: May we say something more about definitions? Have we further points to add?

[English]

The Chairman: Now we're on Clause 3.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, as you recall, I read into the record - I don't know how many days ago that is now, two I think - that Clause 3 on page 4 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 22 on page 4 and substituting the following... Do you want me to go through it all again? I read it into the record, of course, as you know -

The Chairman: Yes, you did already.

Mr. Nault: - a couple of weeks ago.

The Chairman: When we get to the amendments in the Clauses, is it okay if we just dispense with the reading of every single line?

Mr. Nault: It's up to the opposition.

The Chairman: I mean, we all have the papers in front of us.

Mr. Nault: We don't have any opposition to that proposal.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: There is something Kafka-like about this sitting. We should at least read the Clauses; if we don't do it now, why not go to the vote immediately and be done with it? Couldn't we at least read the Clauses?

[English]

The Chairman: I just asked that, and if you would prefer to get everybody to read every word of every line, that's fine. We'll do that.

Mr. Nault, can you now perhaps read something that you've read already?

Mr. Nault: As you know, Mr. Chairman, we weren't suggesting to the opposition that they couldn't ask questions about the Clause. I think what you were saying is that some of the Clauses are relatively long, and we could get into the question period. But if they want me to read it, I'll read it over again. I could probably use the practice.

Under ``Commission to assess adjustment'':

``3(1) The Commission shall monitor and assess

(a) how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting to the changes made by this Act to the insurance and employment assistance programs under the Unemployment Insurance Act;

(b) whether the savings expected as a result of the changes made by 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 claimants to be available for and to seek employment and on the efforts of employers to maintain a stable workforce.''

Under ``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.''

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is intended to make sure that, because of the behavioural changes to this act, the monitoring system is in fact fine-tuned to the point at which we know what kinds of results we're getting.

This is a dramatic improvement over the previous legislation and how the employment and unemployment insurance provisions have been monitored in the past. Quite frankly, we hope to be able to show that the changes we've made to this legislation - the fundamental changes, I might add - are going to be proven to be beneficial to behavioural change, to the way people get back into the workforce, and I hope quite frankly to the lowering of the unemployment rate.

We've obviously made it very clear that the minister has signalled that this is a very important part of the bill - the monitoring itself. He will be asking for reports on a regular basis, because he wants to monitor to see that we are moving in the right direction.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Nault. Mrs. Brown.

Mrs. Brown: Yes, I have a question through you to the officials, Mr. Chair.

In terms of an assessment framework - and I know that I asked a question quite some time ago with respect to any assessment that was going to be undertaken in terms of evaluating individuals and evaluating programs that individuals were able to access - have you actually developed your assessment framework for the commission in order for it to be able to undertake this task?

.1240

Ms Norine Smith (Acting Executive Director, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): We're in the course of doing that. There has been considerable work undertaken in that regard over the last four or five months. We'll be building very strongly on the assessment framework that we've had in the past for the evaluation studies that were an underpinning for the analysis for this reform, and the modelling and survey work that we have done in the past. So we will be building on a strong base of analytical knowledge and expertise.

Mrs. Brown: Is it possible to see the work when it's completed in terms of the nature of the kind of an assessment you will undertake? I'm not necessarily thinking of all of the detail, but in particular the criteria upon which the framework will be built.

Ms Smith: Certainly.

Mrs. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Brown.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Will these facts, observations and assessments be made public?

[English]

Ms Smith: Sub-Clause 3(3) indicates that the report would be laid before Parliament.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I am not talking about the report -

Mr. Crête: The observations that the Commission will be making initially -

Mrs. Lalonde: Will the data you will be collecting not be published?

[English]

Ms Smith: Yes, I imagine in most cases it would be. Perhaps the only exception might be survey data, but I don't see any reason why the data wouldn't be publicly available.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of clarification, if it deals with monitoring of individuals and their movements, some of this stuff is restricted by access to information because of its sensitivity, is it not?

Ms Smith: Yes, it would be. That's why I was making the reference to a survey date as an example of some data that would be difficult in detail to make publicly available.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Allow me to clarify our question. If, after one year, the Commission reports on its assessment of the impact of this Act on the individuals, communities and economy of the Maritimes, will this report be tabled simultaneously with the Minister and brought to the attention of Parliament, the communities and the people of the region?

[English]

Ms Smith: Yes, and that's the intent of Sub-Clauses (3)3 and 3(4) that indicate the report would be available to Parliament and would be referred to a committee of the House.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose a subamendment, so that Clause 3 would read:

``3. (1) The Commission shall monitor and assess the effects on individuals, communities and the economy of the changes made by this Act - ''

It is easy to understand. It seems to me that the Commission must not only assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting, but rather assess the effects of the changes on individuals, communities and the economy.

The Commission's responsibility should not be limited to ensuring that people adapt. If some economic and social problems result, as we anticipate, it will be necessary to collect some data and to have the mandate to do so. My colleagues opposite should agree with this improvement.

[English]

The Chairman: If we're going to have many subamendments, we're going to have to take a bit of time for the clerk to take note and do it right. Okay, you may read it now.

Mr. Nault.

.1245

Mr. Nault: Obviously, one of the things we had asked for from the opposition - and quite rightfully so they asked us for - was to table their amendments in advance so that we could get a copy of them. We have done that.

I'm not going to start assessing their amendments on the fly, not even having got a copy of them, having it read into the record and then trying to remember what the amendment is in conversations that may go on for 15 or 20 minutes. I'd like a copy of those amendments photocopied if the clerk has to before we get into the amendment or vote for it. I'd like to see it, what the wording is. It might not be right in French and we might have take a look at it.

So I'd like to make sure that it's properly done and then we can go from there. That was the original reason the opposition asked us for the amendments as early as they could get them. It makes things run much smoother. I expect the same courtesy.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, I thought at the beginning of the hearings I also made it quite clear that I would have preferred that everybody's amendments be forwarded earlier on for this particular reason.

As chair, I have to accept Mr. Nault's request as a valid request. I personally don't want members of Parliament to start voting on subamendments or motions or amendments without actually reading the text, which leaves me to only one decision, and that is that they have to be written and they also have to be distributed.

Of course this will create some interruption in time, but it's an interruption in time that is going to cost us, because we only have ten hours and the clock continues to tick.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: My question is very simple. If we cannot, as the Standing Orders allow, present subamendments at this stage because the government is opposed and you seem to confirm Mr. Nault's position, I would ask you what we are going to do during the next ten hours if we cannot change anything.

Mr. Young made a statement in the newspaper that he would not be proposing any further amendments, and you do not want to receive ours. What are we doing here?

[English]

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that?

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Again, it's a problem with the translation - it has to be. I didn't say they couldn't present their amendments. All I asked for is that I get a copy of it in writing. I never said they couldn't present their amendments. That's why I think there's something wrong with the translation, because Mr. Dubé is suggesting I'm recommending they can't present the amendments. I never said any such thing. All I said is I'd like it in writing so I can look at it.

If I did the same thing to the opposition, I can guarantee you the first thing they'd say is they need it in French because the French word might not be right and they have a right to see it, and rightfully so, they do. I have a right to see it in English and I'd like to see what it says and how the words fit into this amendment that's already on the table. That's all I'm asking for. They can put amendments until they're blue in the face.

The Chairman: Point well taken. Mrs. Brown. Sorry, point of order, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I requested the floor and I indicated it in the proper way, and the parliamentary secretary.... We should respect the right to speak as much as possible. If not, I may get into a very foul mood. That was a point of order.

May I exercise my right to speak on the subamendment now?

[English]

The Chairman: We have to respect the wishes of all the members of this committee, and it is the wish of Mr. Nault and, I would believe, other members of this committee that they would at least like to see the subamendments because you're dealing with words that may have, and of course will have, an impact on the legislation. I'm in the hands of the committee here, but my interpretation of this is that members of the committee ought to be able to read what exactly they're voting on. That's my decision.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: To facilitate things - and you may be assured that I have no intention of doing this in overabundance - I am going to translate the subamendment into English, which should read:

[English]

``The commission shall monitor and assess effects on individual communities and the economy in adjusting to the change made by''

Is ``in'' okay, a good preposition? Did you understand why I wanted that to be changed? It is for the commission to have the mandate to evaluate and monitor what is going on, not only the adaptation to the bill.

.1250

Mrs. Brown: Actually that wording is better English, if you really look at the structure of that particular amendment. ``Having the effect of'' on an individual is also inherent within that statement, and from a semantics or linguistics point of view, it just improves the understanding of the particular amendment.

Mr. Nault: I would expect the opposition to give us an explanation to their amendment. That would be the very least they could do. I have no problem with that, and they can explain it. But that particular amendment will be stood down until I see it in writing from the clerk in the official legalese.

Mrs. Brown argued vociferously for quite some time that she could not make an amendment in this place until she was absolutely sure of the legalese. So now she's expecting me just to jump on the table and say ``Throw any old amendment in there and I'll agree with it, even though I haven't seen the legalese or the amendment in writing''. You know we will not be doing that on this side.

They can debate this, Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, they should explain their amendment, but then I'd like to see it in writing so we can have a copy of it before we put the vote. Otherwise we'll be forced to vote against them all.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I have no objection to the amendment being photocopied if the parliamentary secretary finds it too difficult to take a position on this simple change, which seems to me to improve the whole thing and to enable the necessary adjustments to be made as the years go by. I would love these sittings to be public, because we would see very clearly on which side the serious work is being done.

To accelerate the proceedings and make our task easier, we could suspend the consideration of Clause 3 while photocopies are being made.

Mr. Crête: I would like to speak on the amendment. How the amendment reads is very important, since we had the impression that individuals, and especially communities, were little performing dogs whose behaviour was being studied. Much greater respect would be shown if we said: ``the effects on individuals, communities and the economy''. It is a question of style in French, but it is also a question of considering the effects of a reform on people, and not the way in which they have adjusted to it. It is a quite different philosophy. The original text seemed to speak of a region as if it were a laboratory, when the emphasis is on a more humane vision of this process. That is the sense of the subamendment we are proposing.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further debate on this subamendment?

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the officials something.

From my understanding of the monitoring process, what I get out of the subamendment is that the opposition is suggesting that we'll not be sharing the assessments with the affected communities. My understanding is that the intent of the assessments is, for economic reasons, we would go down to the community level through the CECs and say to them: ``Here are the effects of this particular legislation, here's what's going on in the micro-picture or the macro-picture in your region, and here are some of the recommendations we think we could look at together as a community - the federal, provincial and municipal governments and/or the private sector - to see if we can come up with some solutions, because here's what's happened...''

Is that not the intent of the legislation as it's written now? Why would we be doing assessments and then hiding them? I'm not sure whether there's a need to have some sort of amendment if in fact that's what we're doing already under the present system.

Ms Smith: That is indeed the case, and the first step in any of that type of analysis would be to assess the effect on individuals.

Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1255

Mr. Easter: In effect, then, the amendment may not be necessary because basically what the amendment is saying is the same thing as the intention of this amendment. Is that correct?

Ms Smith: Yes.

Mr. Easter: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The Liberal member is entitled to think that this is what an assessment is, the experts are entitled to think so, and we are entitled to think differently.

The text, as it appears, reflects very accurately the senior civil service perception of the communities that are affected by the reform. With regard to the wording of the legislation, it is important that the spirit and the words be consistent. If one of the principles of the legislation treats people as little performing dogs in a laboratory, that approach must be changed.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to make this clear so that we understand the procedure. Because the parliamentary secretary has requested that all the subamendments be photocopied before they are voted upon, I think the proper thing to do would be to stand the subamendment.

Mr. Nault: May I clarify what I said?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Nault: What the Reform Party has said is that they couldn't give us any of their amendments or thoughts in advance because they had to be put in legalese. Obviously the opposition was pushing us. There were all sorts of problems with the legal department and why they couldn't get their amendments done. Now we're being told by the opposition that it's perfectly acceptable just to put an amendment in, whether it's in legal language or not, and we're to vote for it.

I'd like to have the legal people and your clerk assure me that it's in legal form so we know that the intent of the amendment or the subamendment is exactly what we're getting and that we're not just basically voting on something that is put on a little piece of paper and then handed to us. I can write an amendment on every Clause as I go on the fly here. That's not hard to do, but that's not the intent of this. The intent is to make sure that this is an improvement to the legislation.

The Chairman: But you would be satisfied if the clerk and our legal adviser said that it's in proper format and it's acceptable?

Mr. Nault: I certainly have nothing but respect for the people at the front table and I would respect their professional opinion. That's what I'm looking for.

The Chairman: Therefore, if the subamendment is within its proper legal text and photocopied and distributed and what have you, you would be okay with it.

Mr. Nault: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that his argument had to do with the requests, the demands of the Reform party. We did not formulate it. Under which standing order can it be required that written texts be presented? I have sat on other committees and very often it is presented in the same way that Mrs. Lalonde did earlier. I am trying to understand. Under what standing order is it not possible to function like that? It would be much quicker. If there is a standing order in that regard, I will shut up.

[English]

The Chairman: Section 65 says:

``All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the Chair. When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the Clerk of the Table to read it in the other, before debate.''

I think that answers your question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: So it is not necessary that it be typewritten.

Mr. Dubé: Mrs. Lalonde corrected the texts herself and gave them to the clerk. So it's all right.

[English]

The Chairman: It is, but the request has been made by Mr. Nault; he would actually like toread it.

Mr. Nault: What's the sense of having it in writing if no one will get to look at it exceptthe opposition?

The Chairman: Exactly.

.1300

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Crête pointed out earlier that maybe we have a difference of opinion on this.

An hon. member: And on a lot of things.

Mr. Easter: I would like to see it in writing myself, because I want to be able to determine in my own mind whether what is stated here is intended to do the same thing as Mrs. Lalonde's motion is meant to do. I agree with them on the point that we need to know the impact, but if I could see the words, then I could make up my own mind accordingly.

The Chairman: I want to keep some order in this. As you probably would gather, this is going to be a little bit of a lengthy process, because in order for me to deal with the subamendments they would first of all have to be written, then they'd have to go through the legal check, and then they'd have to be photocopied and distributed.

As long as people understand that we'll be dealing with the subamendment, I won't move on to the next one until.... Well, we're not going to be able to vote until Mr. Nault and everyone else has read the text first.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I have often chaired committees in my life and there is nothing to prevent us, when there is an amendment like that.... Once again, it is not so much my intention to do that, but it seemed important to me for what followed if you know that I disagree on the bill.

There is nothing to prevent someone from proposing to stand Clause 4 until we have the documents, and come back to it later and take the vote. It seems to me that you, as chairman, do not need a special motion. However, if you need one, I can do it.

When someone wants to present an amendment or a subamendment and you don't have the wording, the person who wants to present it can do so and the clerk will take the time to distribute the texts to everyone. Then, you stand the Clause in question and go on.

[English]

The Chairman: But we'll have to stand the subamendment and the amendment.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: That's what I'm saying.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: There is nothing to prevent us from continuing.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, I'm glad you want to continue. That's a good sign.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, all we have always wanted is some real time. We don't have time to assess the effects, etc. We know that, and, in any event, we have been told that the purpose of this procedure was only to bring the whole matter before the House of Commons.

[English]

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, another suggestion may be that if the Bloc members, or Reform members for that matter, have amendments that they know they're going to be making, maybe they could photocopy them and bring them back afterward, depending on whether we leave for question period. If I had a copy of the writing, that would satisfy me.

The Chairman: I think the question period issue has been resolved; it's already 1:05 p.m.

So now we're dealing with the subamendment and you're finished with your comments on it?

Mr. Nault: So what we're saying here now is that the opposition, when they put an amendment or a subamendment, is not going to give us an explanation or debate it? Are we just going to stand it down? Of course, if they don't give us a rationale and explanation, and then we wait for who knows how long, depending on how many subamendments and amendments the opposition has, and we have no opportunity to ask the officials what they think of the proposal or whatever, obviously we're going to have no choice but to vote it down.

On the one hand I understand that they should stand it down, but I'm just trying to get some clarification from the opposition. Are they still going to give us a rationale for it, even though we haven't seen the words on paper? Will we at least get a sense of what they were talking about?

The Chairman: Any subamendment will receive a full explanation from the person who proposes the subamendment so that at least we know what they're talking about.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to wind up. In presenting the subamendment,I said it seemed to me that, given the crucial importance of the changes that are being made, it is not only the adaptation to the changes made by the Act that ought to be examined, but also the consequences of the enactment of this legislation. It is not the same thing. Perhaps the word ``adaptation'' has a stronger connotation in French than the word ``adjust'' does in English.

.1305

When we talk of studying how communities are adjusting, it means we are measuring, for example, how many people were doing overtime, etc. It seems to me that this is insufficient, given the crucial importance of the whole thing.

Personally, I predict that this legislation will have an adverse effect on employment. I am sure the Commission will want to monitor this. So it is a question not only of seeing how communities and individuals will adjust to an Act but also of measuring the effects of the provisions on the economy and individuals. In my view, it is a perspective that is broader and less distorted.

That is the sense of this subamendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Easter: I want to see the wording.

The Chairman: Okay.

We'll call this subamendment 1. Madame Lalonde's subamendment 1 will stand. Is there agreement on that?

Subamendment allowed to stand

The Chairman: Shall the amendment also stand?

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chair, I just want to know why in paragraph (a) this amendment refers to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Is that implying reviewing the circumstances now with respect to what there may be in the future? Why is the Unemployment Insurance Act referred to in here?

Ms Smith: We're looking at how the changes in this act compare to the existing Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. Easter: That's what I thought. That's what I was trying to say, but I wasn't very clear.

The Chairman: Is there agreement that amendment G-2 stand?

Amendment allowed to stand

The Chairman: Shall Clause 3 stand?

Mr. Nault: The amendment and the subamendment are standing, so are you talking about the whole Clause itself now?

The Chairman: Yes. That's the advice I've been given from the clerk.

Clause 3 allowed to stand

The Chairman: We'll be standing most of the day.

Now we're going to Clause 4. Mr. Nault.

On Clause 4 - Maximum for each year

Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 4 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 32 on page 4 and substituting the following, with the marginal notation ``Maximum for each year'':

``4. For the purposes of subsection 14(1.1), section 17, subsec-''

The reason for the change is that Clause 4 defines maximum yearly insurable earnings. This amendment will refer to the new sublause 14(1.1), because that's the section we're using for maximum yearly insurable earnings as a basis for defining maximum weekly insurable earnings. So it just refers to the new section, and that's why there's an amendment.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I cannot let that Clause go by. I have often said, and I am going to continue saying it: decreasing the maximum insurable wage deprives the government of the means to carry out a genuine reform.

.1310

Retaining the same maximum benefit and the same maximum insurable wage for five years will have the effect of further decreasing their value. With average inflation, it should reduce the value from $39,000 to $36,000.

So the consequences will be disastrous, and it will help to ensure that the unemployment insurance plan, instead of being directed to all wage-earners, as it should be, is a plan for average and low-wage workers, instead of being a genuine, effective unemployment insurance plan for all workers, including those with higher earnings.

I want to state forcefully that, in my opinion, this is the opposite of common sense, the opposite of a real unemployment insurance plan. It is sad that Canada is heading in this direction. I would add that the minister, Lloyd Axworthy, when they were anticipating a slight increase in the maximum insurable wage in Bill C-17, said it was a step in the right direction. Just this once, I will refer to his expression and I say that this is more than a step in the wrong direction. Canada, with a certain reputation that was already overrated, now finds itself deprived of a genuine plan.

Frankly, I fail completely to see the sense in this, because workers with average and above-average earnings are faced increasingly with job losses. Because someone is making $50,000 a year and his wife makes $30,000 does not mean they are rich or living high on the hog. They need to have a real unemployment insurance plan that lets them find some other employment for themselves.

We know that once you have lost a stable job, your chances of finding another one are slim. That, in fact, was the reasoning, two years ago, in initiating a reform. At the time, we didn't actually see the direction the reform would take, but I remember the tables - I still have them - stating that claims for benefits after a short period of employment had been declining since 1971, while claims for benefits after a long period of employment were increasing.

This means that some people who had stable jobs, who had a certain stability and security, have lost it. These are the people who are hardest to relocate. I think you will concede that.

Why decrease the assistance they are given? The intention is to reduce it from $448 to $413. This is a surprising direction. I guess the intention is to ``settle'', in the wrong way, the problems in the regions. But we are doing it in the wrong way because, instead of establishing a system in terms of the problems in the present labour market, we are establishing a system that tries to prevent what has been referred to as the 10/42. The 10/42 affects certain persons who, by the way, are not responsible for their situation. It is the work that is seasonal, and not the workers, as we were told in a private session by the committee that examined this issue.

I find this truly deplorable, especially since the clawback will mean that the workers in these wage categories will to some degree be punished for using unemployment insurance. It will have a deterrent effect. Instead of expanding solidarity, we reduce it. Instead of providing people with average and above-average wages with a genuine job-search tool, we do the opposite.

.1315

The only reason the deputy minister gives to explain this decrease is that there is a discrepancy between the maximum insurable wage and the average industrial wage. Where is it written that the maximum insurable wage must be aligned with the average industrial wage? In which economist's dreams is this written? I really do not understand.

Some people, in our ridings, had small businesses. How many professional people or officials with decent salaries are losing their jobs because of governments and finding themselves in a difficult situation? Their wife works. Members of parliament earn $64,000 and, in the case of some of them, their wife works. No one is going to become a millionaire with that. We must know what it means.

The unemployment insurance system that it is proposed we adopt is becoming more like the social assistance schemes. I regret this, since it is not adapted to the present labour market. We will be coming back to other measures, but I cannot let that issue pass. It is a great shame that we have taken this direction, and I wish to say so. It will be recorded in the proceedings, since I have said, I continue to say and I will continue to proclaim that it is a great shame. This is not the right direction. It is not the direction of solidarity. It is not the direction of economic and social efficiency for today.

It is a system that is made for a previous situation, and we are taking a very narrow view of things, because we have been unimaginative in our approach to helping people in the regions. It is complete distortion of a system that needed to be ``revamped'' but not along those lines. It is very sad.

I will stop for the time being, but I will have further comments to make.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have some comments to make on that Clause and also some questions to raise on various things.

I do not understand why in paragraph (a) we don't provide for indexation of the $39,000. This means that this amount will remain the same in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. So the effect will be even more pronounced and in four years, in today's constant dollars, it will no longer be $39,000 but rather $38,000.

Mrs. Lalonde: No. It will be about $36,000.

Mr. Crête: So this is a very significant item in opposition to the cuts, the contribution and the people who sustain the system. Since there will be no indexation, it will have an even greater impact on low-income people. There will be no indexation, is that right?

Mrs. Lalonde: That's right.

Mr. Crête: Secondly, in paragraph (b), it states that in years subsequent to the year 2000, itwill be

``...set by the Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.''

Does this mean that there will be a joint recommendation by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance or that each of the ministers will make a recommendation? I would like some particulars on this before going on.

[English]

Ms Smith: Yes, there's one recommendation from the two ministers to the Governor in Council.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: So, the two ministers will make a single recommendation.

[English]

Ms Smith: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Have you made any provision for the case in which the two ministers are unable to agree on the same recommendation?

Mrs. Lalonde: It is settled in the cabinet.

Mr. Crête: No. I am entitled to ask the question, and I know the answer. Is there any provision for the situation in which the two ministers are unable to agree on the same recommendation? This is a very special situation; it is also an important policy choice. The recommendation might be made by either the Minister of Human Resources Development or the Minister of Finance, but we're choosing to have it done jointly by the two ministers, thus giving the impression that there is a consensus when we know very well which minister has control over the purse strings.

Mrs. Lalonde: Previously, it was the Commission that proposed, but they have taken that out of the Act.

Mr. Luc Leduc (advisor, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): If the recommendation was not clear and joint, it is the Governor in Council who would make the decision.

Mr. Crête: But, with regard to the present case, there is a contradiction between the two replies, or am I the one who doesn't understand? She said there would be only one recommendation signed by both ministers. If that is the case, there could not be any contradiction between the two.

.1320

[English]

Ms Smith: In this area we don't have any history of disagreements between the two ministers. There has always been a consensus recommendation. In the eventuality that you are hypothesizing, the Governor in Council would make the decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Last week, the Minister of Human Resources Development made a public statement - and I think it ought to be examined - in which he said it was time to freeze the ceiling on the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund.

He also said there should be some decreases in premiums, that he did not have control over this, that it fell within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and that he was urging him to consider it carefully.

Does this mean that what is in the Act is a change from the present situation.

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Crête: There is a yes, there.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: I just want to caution, Mr. Chairman, that if the member is asking questions that are of a political nature that should be best asked of the minister, then that's where he should do it. But if he's asking questions of the officials that he knows they can't answer, I think it's unfair, because the officials are put in a difficult position of appearing not to be answering the questions when in fact they can't. If they want that kind of information, then ask the appropriate person.

If there's something in the bill they want an answer to that directly affects it and that is a major change, that's different. I don't think it's fair, because you're putting the officials on the spot and you know they won't answer it because it's a political question.

The Chairman: Two things are going to happen. Number one, of course the officials have the choice not to answer questions they deem political. Secondly, the chair will rule out questions that he feels are of a political nature rather than the nature they should be.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: If I am wrong, I am sorry. I will instead put the question to the chairman, for the government to answer, and it will answer through whomever he wishes to designate.

In the new Act, is there any change in relation to what is in the present Act? Will it bring about a significant change? As he has just pointed out to me, correctly, that a policy question should be addressed to him, I am addressing the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to listen to me and understand me clearly.

Does the statement by the Minister of Human Resources Development last week suggest that the responsibility for making the decision lies with the Minister of Finance? Has the Act been amended to ensure that the decision is now taken jointly? If such is the case, it would be a completely different approach.

I would require further information before deciding whether I will propose an amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: The minister appeared before the committee. You've had the bill since December. If you wanted to ask those sorts of questions, why didn't you ask those questions then?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: So, I was not sufficiently acquainted with the Act. I came to the Clause-by-Clause consideration and that is the time to propose amendments. If I lacked information, I could not adequately do my job, because you cannot have a detailed knowledge of all 190 Clauses in the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: I know you have to do your job and you've been doing it quite well.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The parliamentary secretary asked me to direct my comments to him on a policy question because, he said, I had asked the wrong person. Now you are telling me that this is no longer the time to ask the question, that I should have raised it when the Minister was appearing before us.

Mrs. Lalonde: Do you want us to leave? It will be easier for you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, with all due respect, let me be very blunt with you. The officials are not going to answer that question because I deem it to be a political question.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: That is what I had understood.

[English]

The Chairman: You had the minister appear in front of the committee; you could have asked him that question. The parliamentary secretary may want to engage in a Q & A, but I think that at the last meeting he said he didn't want to do that. I took the direction from your unwillingness to respond.

Mr. Nault: I would be willing to have Mr. Crête and anyone else in the opposition ask questions of a political nature. We will take them under advisement and we'll get back to them on the answers. I certainly am not going to fire off the cuff because I'm not the minister; it's not my place. If he thinks I am, then he hasn't been around very long in politics. I'm not going to answer the question, but I'll take it under advisement and I'll get him the answer, if that's what he'd like, or we'll get him a non-answer, depending on what we like.

The point is, we will get some sort of resolution to that or he can ask the question in the House of Commons. I do give you that undertaking, because it's unfair, as you well know. It's the minister's responsibility to answer those kinds of questions, not mine. If it related to the bill, then I would have an obligation and we would attempt to do it right now, on the spot, but it doesn't.

.1325

The Chairman: Okay, so we're all clear on those questions and the nature of those questions. This is the way it's going to work, and I repeat it so that everybody is clear. If I deem them to be political in nature, the officials will not answer them. At any point in time in which there is a political question, Mr. Nault has stated that as parliamentary secretary he will take the question under advisement. So you could still ask the question, but it's going to be taken under advisement and an answer will be forthcoming within a reasonable time.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I am very happy that the rules have been explained in this way. It allows me to note that, to support my argument, I will have to develop it much more. I will have to take more room, because I will be obliged each time to consider all of the possibilities. Having no reply to my question, I will have to argue if the reply is along one line and provide the answer if the argumentis along the other.

That way, I will get an opportunity to provide all the information that is in my view relevant to a matter. This could take a long time; we are good at discussing. A Clause like that, which affects the maximum wage, is very important, and I could talk about it at considerable length if I had the opportunity, and if the replies were not forthcoming, especially when they are simple. When they are technical, political, it is possible to reply fairly quickly and to ensure that -

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I just overheard Mr. Nault say that he would answer those types of questions.

Mr. Nault: He's asking the question about who is responsible for the decision. Mr. Chairman, if you read the Clause in the act, you will see that both ministers are responsible. You know as well as I do, and I think the opposition does, that they will have discussions and will jointly make a presentation to the cabinet as to what in essence the recommendation will be.

As you know and as most people in the western world know how parliamentary procedure works and how the government works, then full cabinet normally will take a look at these kinds of issues and make decisions. So that's the answer, if he was looking for one.

The Chairman: Are you satisfied with the answer?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I am flabbergasted by the collaboration of the parliamentary secretary, who has very clearly understood the importance of answering questions as quickly as possible, so we can get on to the other discussions.

[English]

The Chairman: If I were Mr. Nault, I would get a plaque and engrave those words for Mr. Crête.

Mr. Nault: It wouldn't do me much good in my riding.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: We're talking about a decrease in the maximum insurable wage from $42,000 to $32,000, which had been provided in Bill C-31, and we're saying that these provisions would be retroactive to last January 1st. But that is not the issue. Retroactivity is always possible. I don't know who could answer the question - the officials are surely able to do so - but I would like to know if it is true that at present the $39,000 rule is being applied and the premiums have therefore been collected since January 1st? Is that correct?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Was that question for me again?

The Chairman: Yes, it was. I guess we'll just get them to repeat it.

Mr. Nault: What was the question? I'm sorry, I apologize.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: A ``yes'' or ``no'' answer is possible.

[English]

Mr. Nault: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: You did not understand?

[English]

Mr. Nault: Can you repeat it? I'm sorry, I didn't know you were asking. If you had referredto my name, but I didn't think you even referred to me by name, I usually pick it up here.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, if you can ask the question -

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: It is a question that is both political and administrative. The people from the Department, Ms Smith in particular, could no doubt answer. I asked whether, in fact, the premiums were now being based not on $42,300 but on $39,000, and whether, as some people told my colleague, since January 1, 1996 employers had already begun to deduct the premiums. This provision was also in Bill C-31, because there have been two pieces of legislation.

.1330

In order not to prolong the discussion, I will make my comment forthwith. If I have to reformulate my question, what is the use of discussing here?

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Smith would like to answer that question.

Ms Smith: The provision in anticipation of this measure, which in fact for this year is part of the budget bill, has been... Employers have been advised that they are permitted to collect premiums at the lower rate, but claimants are being paid at the higher rate, until such time as this becomes law.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Easter: Really with reference to Madam Lalonde's points earlier on lowering the maximum insurable earnings, Mr. Chair, I want to put on the record that I disagree with her points, and one of the reasons that we as a government are putting forward to lower the maximum insurable earnings is in fact to bring better balance into the system.

I've had a lot of complaints in my particular area about the maximum insurable earnings being so much higher than the industrial wage. When the unemployment insurance system was brought in originally, it was relatively equal - the industrial wage and the maximum insurable earnings - and it has gotten out of line.

Certainly where the complaints will come from is people who are working 52 weeks of the year and paying into unemployment. They see the need for the system, but they take it to be extremely unfair if they are continuing to pay in 52 weeks, and their neighbour, who may only happen to work 20, 26 or 30 weeks, is in fact taking home with unemployment insurance much more money than they are. So I think it was necessary to bring the MIE down to bring better balance to the program, and to prevent the program from being unduly attacked.

The Chairman: Mr. Regan.

Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to say that Mr. Easter made most of the points I wanted to make about this issue, this Clause.

It does seem to me that we have to determine at what level the maximum insurable earnings should be, and under the current formula they would grow to more than 40% above the average industrial wage in the year 2000. That seems to me excessive.

It seems to me that there are a lot of low-income and modest-income Canadians who are paying into this at present, and in effect subsidizing people who are very well off already and in many cases benefitting from unemployment insurance year after year after year.

I do find it remarkable that the Bloc talks about solidarity when in fact that's the reverse of solidarity, it seems to me, if we have the poor subsidizing the rich. It's kind of surprising to me that they would take that point of view and want to protect those high-income people, although I understand they're members of unions, and so forth. But I think we have to look at what's reasonable here, and I believe that people across the country want a system that protects a reasonable level of income but not a high level of income. This is what this Clause is attempting to do, I think in a reasonable way.

The Chairman: Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: If we could have had a real discussion on this, we might have said it would be possible to increase the premiums, while nevertheless setting a ceiling, not a ceiling of $413 because that is too low, but a ceiling that is not necessarily perfectly equivalent to increase the volume of the premiums, and then reduce them for everyone and make the plan accessible to those with average or above-average income even if they have a lower unemployment rate. The only reason the deputy minister gave was that they have a lower unemployment rate.

Personally, I would say it is precisely because they have a lower unemployment rate that it is important that they participate.

.1335

This would allow an overall reduction. A system should not be built without a comprehensive approach and that is what is important, to ensure that the base of those who are paying is larger. Furthermore, I would point out to you that all the researchers who had conducted studies for the government told me they were favourable to increasing the maximum insurable wage.

So there is one thing such as earnings and another thing such as determining the maximum desirable benefit. We could have discussed that. We could have had a fair system.

We are increasing the burden on small and medium sized businesses. We know there is no agreement as to whether people who pay premiums from the beginning will get the benefits. I look forward to seeing the assessments. However, one thing is certain: the big capital-intensive firms have been given a gift. I am scandalized by that.

At present, there is no law authorizing the government - Mr. Chairman determined it was technical or political - or the Department of Revenue in turn to authorize employers to levy premiums on only $750 of maximum insurable weekly earnings.

The Chairman: Who can answer? Mr. Leduc.

Mr. Leduc: It is true, with regard to premiums, that the government is following the conventional policy on fiscal matters.

Mrs. Lalonde: What does ``the conventional policy'' mean?

Mr. Leduc: When a retroactive provision in an Act is tabled, people can generally begin paying the higher tax or, in this case, collecting a lower tax or premium.

Mrs. Lalonde: So, it is understandable why the discussions we have had here were not really relevant. When the government decides to apply the decrease immediately and tells us to present some amendments, when they know that none of the amendments could effectively change anything whatever, it is really very peculiar.

But I understood correctly. The employers are collecting and paying premiums only on a maximum of $750, but unemployment insurance will pay 55 percent of $845 to people who make claims between now and the enactment of the legislation.

Mr. Guy Grenon (Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Development, Department of Human Resources Development): Until the enactment of the legislation, the legal rate for 1996 is $845. We consider that those who are receiving between $750 and $845 in insurable weekly earnings are at $845. So they can enjoy a rate up to a possible maximum of $465 until the coming into force of Bill C-31.

Mrs. Lalonde: The premiums are on $750. They pay only on $750 and receive benefits as if they had paid on $845.

Mr. Grenon: Yes.

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, can the government be considered a good fiduciary of the employers and employees when it proceeds in this way? Decide whom my question is addressed to or don't answer it, but frankly, this is rather peculiar.

.1340

I have a further question. If I understood correctly, you are withdrawing completely the old Unemployment Insurance Act, which hitherto had a history. With each amendment, you said: ``Here is how it was in 1980, how it was in 1971''. You are doing away with the determination of the premiums and all the criteria it previously contained.

[English]

Ms Smith: The provisions that define how maximum insurable earnings were determined before, yes, have been completely replaced by this new Clause 4.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We can say that the tradition is completely changed. From now on, it becomes a completely political decision, given the nature of what is there and the transformation in the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Regan spoke earlier about the average industrial wage. I don't have the data here, but I checked recently, and if I remember correctly, it is $14.14. I would like confirmation on that.

I did a calculation. When we speak of the industrial wage, it is usually based on a 40-hour week. If the week is 40 hours, the wage is $565.60 and, for a 35-hour week, it is $494.90. It is an argument that has been raised many times. As Mr. Regan said, a person working at the average industrial wage should not be receiving more than the people who get the maximum benefits.

I would like someone to tell me what the average hourly wage is in Canada at present.

I am trying to understand the logic that is entailed in making this decrease, when $565 is much more than $413. I do not see the problem.

[English]

Ms Smith: I'm sorry, with respect to the hourly rate I'm a bit lost as to how one would determine an hourly rate from this yearly maximum. How many hours per year would you like us to assume?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: The bill marks a new departure. We're going from a system based on weeks of work to an hours-based system. I have tried to adapt quickly, especially since it was already determined in advance. I tried to see what this would yield in reality.

Is it true or false that the average hourly wage in 1994 was $14.14? If you can't give me the answer immediately, I will understand, but I would like to obtain it after question period. I am saying that at 40 hours a week, this would provide $565 and at 35 hours a week, $494. Is that true?

Mrs. Lalonde: It does not take account of overtime.

Mr. Dubé: It does not include overtime. The construction workers told us: ``We make big wages, it's true, but with our type of work, it lasts only a few months a year. It is very cyclical.''

In that case it would be unfair to consider the wage on an annual basis. Someone who had a good year would distort the data.

I am making an appeal. I have the opportunity to have the officials in front of me and I would like someone to confirm that within the next hour. How can one justify such a thing? Otherwise, what is being said by Mr. Regan, for whom I have great respect, cannot stand. What he says does not withstand the facts.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Regan, followed by Mr. Nault.

.1345

Mr. Regan: I'm a little unclear because it seems to me that when we talk about the hours system versus the week system, the hours system has to do with determining eligibility. I don't think we're talking about eligibility here, so it's a different issue entirely. I don't follow the connection he's making.

Mr. Nault: He wants to know what the hourly rate is if the MIE is a certain amount a week. It works out to $21 an hour, doesn't it, for the top MIE rate?

Ms Smith: Yes. So at $39,000 a year, if someone were to work all 52 weeks of the year, at 35 hours a week, that would be $21.43.

Mr. Nault: Yes, $21 an hour. That's not bad where I come from. Mr. Dubé, where did you get your $2 an hour?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: From Statistics Canada.

Mrs. Lalonde: It is not two dollars an hour. You said $14.

Mr. Dubé: I said $14 an hour.

[English]

Mr. Nault: We heard on the piece here, something like $2.50 or something.

The Chairman: No, it's $14.

Mr. Nault: Our numbers are $21, so I don't know where you're getting $14 from.

The Chairman: I think we've exhausted this debate? Is the committee ready for the question? Shall the amendment carry?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We are asking for a recorded vote. We will not do that all the time, but you will understand that there has been enough talk about -

[English]

The Chairman: We'll go to a recorded vote.

Amendment agreed to: Yeas 6; Nays 3

Clause 4 as amended agreed to

Clause 5 carried on division

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Just a moment. You are going fast.

[English]

Everything is on division.

Clause 6 carried on division

On Clause 7 - Authority to transfer

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Just a moment, just a moment.

[English]

The Chairman: There's an amendment on the government side.

Mr. Nault: The clerk has an additional package to distribute with the revised Clause 7 and certain other revisions, which we will refer to as we get to each particular Clause. So if we could hand out the revisions that deal with new Clause 7...

The Chairman: Have the revisions been distributed?

Madame Lalonde, do you still want Mr. Nault to read this entire package? I would like you to see it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: He can read the text. We will examine the tables. In any event, he should inform us of the major changes.

.1350

[English]

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that because this is a new Clause, Clause 7 is not changing. So this goes after Clause 7. So we'd have to pass Clause 7 to get to the new Clause, which is Clause 7.1.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, we fully expressed our apprehensions about the changes in the hour-based system of weeks. I remind you that a professor from the University of British Columbia recommended that we be extremely careful because we were the first country to be going from a week-based system to an hour-based system. He said: ``It's a leap in the dark.'' I am saying it in English for Mr. Nault. And you are going to hear it again.

[English]

Mr. Nault: He's the only one you could find. You've -

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: That's all right because it is short and it says everything. We are talking about the increase in requirements. We absolutely disagree. An hour-based system that does not increase the requirements was conceivable. However, you can't stick to the hour-based system because you needed, somewhere, to establish the weekly benefits when in reality the number of hours worked already determines the salary, the earnings and thus the benefit.

It goes back and forth between hours and weeks, in a way that seems to serve some interests that are not those of the people who need a real unemployment insurance system. So the increase in requirements will have extremely serious consequences for a lot of people. You must know this. Everyone has said so. There has been talk about major social costs. There has also been talk, and this will apply to the regions, about major economic costs.

The bill as a whole also deals with something other than the hour-based system. After consideration of the bill as a whole, I will be coming back to this on a number of occasions. And here, indeed, I do not understand. It encourages, through easier accessibility, through more benefits, rewarding people who are holding down two jobs and working overtime. It is the worst transformation for employment. I do not understand, because one of our problems, in many places in Canada, is having a maximum number of hours of work per week.

So, on the one hand, there is a demand for a normal week beyond which overtime would be paid and, on the other hand, the bill provides that the more hours one works in a week, the better it is and the quicker one qualifies. But we already take earnings into account, and that's all right. But the more weeks of benefits one has... It is the opposite of common sense.

In a period when jobs are scarce, when the labour market is being destructured, it makes no sense. You are going to have to justify it for the history books. It is a serious aboutface. On several occasions in the documents you produce we find that someone is being rewarded at the qualification level. It says: If you have put in 42 hours or 60 hours, you will qualify more quickly and you will have, depending on the situation, one, two or three weeks more of benefits. So it is an encouragement to overtime. It is an encouragement to dual employment. It is made for that.

.1355

[English]

Mr. Nault: That's a union group. People work overtime.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I'm sorry, but I will go on.

[English]

An hon. member: No such thing.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: The Department, with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, has done some studies on the need to reduce the work week.

One of the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, which included some employers as well, was to decrease the normal work week. How can we, on the one hand, contemplate a normal work week and, on the other hand, establish benefits that are more favourable when you don't work a normal work week? You will have to explain that. It may be that you can't do that here, but in international forums, everywhere, you are going to have to explain it. Attempts are being made everywhere to reduce work time or do work sharing, in a way. It is the opposite of common sense. It is a trend.

This bill is a structuring bill. It will transform the labour market. In the amendment, we were talking about assessing how people adapt to measures. I hope they do not adjust. If they adjust to what is in there, it will mean there is more dual employment, more overtime. That is the tendency you are creating.

In addition to reducing the benefit, reducing the maximum insurable wage and the rapidity of the penalties, it will multiply the hours for a lesser wage. When all the effects are added up, the overall structuring effect will be a decrease in wages and an increase in overtime.

There is another issue as well. It is the nature of work. Work is not an occupation that one performs, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that we not filibustering, and I would like you to listen to me.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm listening.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I will not be speaking about it whenever we encounter the word ``hours'', butI would really like to discuss the effects. In view of everything we have heard in committee, even if we did not hear from everyone who wanted to be heard, from everything we have read, even the researchers who came, and who were largely tending in your direction, were extremely worried about these provisions. An economist can assess the effect of a provision, but not its overall effect.

It would have been worth while discussing and getting a number of economists to come together. If indeed the committee had wanted to give the country the best possible system, we might have been in a position to debate it. That is why I would have wanted us, at a later stage, to be able to identify the major problems related to it.

I will point out to you that we have heard from the senior civil servants, whose competenceI respect, and they have given us 25- and 30-page documents on the spot, not a single minute in advance. I have requested on several occasions that we be given the documents in time to read them, so we can ask questions about them, but each time they have arrived just in time. When I reread them, I said to myself: ``If I had read them beforehand, I could have asked this question or that question.''

I am sorry we were unable to do that work. It seems to me that, because we have not done that work, we have not done the work for which we are responsible.

Click here to go to next section

Return to Committee Home Page