Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, January 24, 1996

.1616

[English]

The Chairman: Order. Our purpose is to consider, clause by clause, Bill C-96, An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts. You all have a list of the clauses.

Before we turn to each of the clauses in the order we will be considering them, may I introduce our witnesses, Mr. Gordon McFee, acting director general, insurance policy; Ms Katy Burnett....

Your title, please?

Ms Katy Burnett (Senior Policy Adviser, Insurance Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Senior policy advisor, Insurance Branch.

The Chairman: And Mr. Rob Cook.

Do you have any opening remarks to make on the legislation before we proceed to clause-by-clause?

Mr. Gordon McFee (Acting Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, no, we don't have any opening remarks to make. We believe your committee has discussed the bill fairly completely up to now. We have nothing to add unless you have questions.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Are there any last-minute questions on the legislation from any of the members before we proceed to clause-by-clause?

Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): We have last-minute comments.

The Chairman: Could you save the last-minute comments, unless they're really urgent?

Mrs. Lalonde: On each clause.

The Chairman: In that case we will begin clause-by-clause consideration, beginning with clause 2. We will reserve the title of the bill until the end.

On clause 2 - Definitions

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will proceed in the usual manner, and there will be recorded votes after each clause. The votes for or against will be recorded.

[English]

Is there an amendment to clause 2? Mr. Bevilacqua.

Mr. Bevilacqua (York North): I move that clause 2 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 8 on page 1 and substituting the following:

The Chairman: Has everybody heard the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): It will therefore be the Employment Insurance Commission instead of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

The Chairman: That's right.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 6 - Powers, duties and functions

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: Excuse me. I have things to say about this clause 6.

The Chairman: All right, Ms. Lalonde.

.1620

Ms. Lalonde: We have the right if not the privilege of expressing that we feel this is an unacceptable broadening of this bill. Under the pretext of administrative streamlining, it considerably broadens the powers of the minister.

Clause 6 describes the powers, duties and functions of the minister as follows:

We feel that at the very least, there is overlap here, and at most, there is an autonomous proclamation of responsibilities and powers which, according to the Constitution, do not belong to the central government.

I know that I will have an opportunity to come back to this often at the report stage and that I've already discussed it, but with regard to clause 6 and a few others - with regard to the other articles, we will proceed by saying that they are agreed to on division - I would like to reiterate that they seem to me extremely unacceptable and completely contrary to the spirit of what the prime minister said concerning recognition of Quebec's distinct nature.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): It is also the right of the government to refute some of the opposition's claims of conspiracy theories -

A voice: Try.

Mr. Nault: - now that we've had Bill C-111 introduced.

Of course, part II deals specifically with the ability to make sure there's no overlap or duplication. If we refer to paragraph 57(1)(a), you will see that in fact we are suggesting in Bill C-111 that there will be harmonization and no duplication.

So I just wanted to have it on the record that the issue that Mrs. Lalonde brings up of the conspiracy theory of the federal government trying to take away provincial powers is not factual or really necessary to debate any further, because this is a housekeeping bill and it really doesn't deal with ``distinct society'' or the Constitution.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I had asked for the floor first and I will respond, please.

The Chairman: I will grant you another response and we can therefore answer one another and stay here all day.

Ms. Lalonde: You will grant it, you will. It's extremely important to say that the provision of Bill C-111 concerning employment benefits maintains intact the powers that the minister wants to give himself under clause 6. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further commentary on that clause?

If not, I'll ask the question again. Shall clause 6 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Clerk, we will proceed whit a recorded division.

Clause 6 carries 5 to 2

.1625

[English]

Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 13 - Boards, committees and councils

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: Clause 13 stipulates that:

I checked, and here again, the minister is going beyond his own powers. I simply wanted to point that out.

[English]

Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to on division

On clause 20 - Agreements

The Chairman: Madame Lalonde on clause 20.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: To our mind, clauses 20 and 21 are important sections of this bill. I will explain what to us is a major difficulty. Clause 20 states:

For us, this is an absolutely unacceptable extension of powers, even under the current federal regime. To our mind, this is abusive, it's an absolutely outrageous extension because it enables the central government to do whatever it wishes. If it allowed it to sign agreements with the provinces, we know that this would bring us back to the constitutional agreements that were attempted.

Then, if a province did not want to sign an agreement, it had the choice of opting out. But here, it says that the minister does what he wants in the area of human resources development, which is clearly under provincial jurisdiction at the outset.

This is therefore a highly unacceptable provision, and as you know it was rejected unanimously not only by the SQDM but also by the National Assembly. It's a major stumbling block. I would therefore request a recorded division on this point.

The Chairman: Before you make your request, I will give the floor to Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Nault: Before we go by these articles, I just want to put on the record that in Bill C-111, subclause 57(3) states with respect to the agreements with the provinces that:

In fact Madam Lalonde is talking about those parts that she refers to as an intrusion in provincial jurisdiction. So in fact what she's suggesting makes absolutely no sense.

Therefore, I just want to put on the record that there has been no extension of powers. It's the same as it always was, and we are not entering into any agreements unless the provinces agree. I just want to put that on the record.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

A brief reply, Ms Lalonde.

.1630

Ms Lalonde: To illustrate this statement, Bill C-111 was put forward by the minister. He could have decided to do something else because clause 20 gives him the power to do so. This therefore means that with Bill C-111, He is using the powers that are conferred by it, but instead of trying to reach some sort of agreement with the provinces - he doesn't say what will happen if he doesn't come to an agreement with them - he could have decided to make any other proposal to anyone given what this clause 20 stipulates. So to my mind, Bill C-111 is simply an expression of the powers that the minister wants to give himself.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Ms Lalonde: A recorded division, please.

Clause 20 is carried 5 to 2

[English]

On clause 21 - Delegation

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: I said that clauses 20 and 21 were in a sense the framework, the skeleton of a bill that is highly unacceptable in Quebec, since the minister says that he wants to delegate the powers, duties, and functions, as provided for under clause 20, to the Minister of Labour, to the Commission or to any other person or organization he designates. Not only is he giving himself powers, but he also adds that he can delegate them to any person or organization he designates. This is adding insult to injury. I would therefore request a recorded division, when you decide to proceed.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on clause 21?

Mr. Dubé: There is something I'd like to clarify. In some ridings, the government is involved in areas where there is still no agreement and is already discussing certain projects with certain organizations and companies. That's the kind of thing we're denouncing here.

The Chairman: You're saying the minister is dealing with organizations...

Mr. Dubé: Over the heads of the provinces and in areas of provincial jurisdiction, notably employment training.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Shall clause 21 carry?

Ms Lalonde: We requested a recorded division.

Clause 21 carries: yeas 5; mays 2

[English]

Clause 22 agreed to on division

On clause 23 - Commission

Mr. Bevilacqua: If I may, I'd like to move an amendment to the heading.

The Chairman: This is an amendment to clause 23?

Mr. Bevilacqua: This is not an amendment to clause 23, but to the heading, right after part II on page 6.

The Clerk of the Committee: It's not necessary.

Mr. Bevilacqua: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay. Is there an amendment to clause 23?

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 23 of Bill C-96 be amended (a) by striking out line 1 on page 7 and substituting the following:

.1635

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: I would ask for the floor, Mr. Chairman. I would like to briefly point out that in this clause, even if there is a constitutional amendment, there is no guarantee that the federal government has the constitutional power to broaden the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to include anything else than insurance.

I'm not announcing any protest in this regard, but the doubts that are raised are so clear that I wish to express them here. Therefore, we would like to record our dissent on this point.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there further comments on clause 23? Hearing none, I ask the question. Shall clause 23 as amended carry?

Clause 23 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 27 - Powers, duties and functions of the Commission

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of clause 27 reads as follows:

Here again, we have confirmation that the minister is seeking to broaden his powers. I therefore request a recorded division.

[English]

The Chairman: There is a request for a roll call vote on clause 27.

[Translation]

Clause 27 carries: yeas 5; mays 2

[English]

Clauses 28 to 30 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 31 - Staff

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you will agree that I'm limiting my comments to the main thrust of my argument.

My opposition to clause 31 is based on another factor. I know that the staff of the Commission was hired by the Commission, which gave the Commission some autonomy that it will no longer have since the department will henceforth be responsible for staffing. In any event, that's what I was told. I was told this was a major change.

There is also subsection 31(3) which states that the Commission itself can delegate its broadened powers "to any person or body, or member of a class of persons or bodies." you will understand that here again, we have no choice but to express our complete opposition.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there other comments on clause 31?

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: I want to reiterate what I've said before. Factually, we disagree with Mrs. Lalonde's interpretation of how the bill reads. As she comes from a labour background, I'm quite surprised that, considering that almost $1.3 billion comes from other provinces for the UI recipients in the province of Quebec, she would not think that the federal government should have some say in the discussion of how the system would work.

Is she suggesting that that money should go elsewhere and that Quebec should run its own affairs without it? Quite frankly, I find this hard to believe - that she's suggesting that there's some sort of scheme going on in essence to take powers away in Bill C-111, as I had mentioned before.

.1640

The fact remains that we will be giving tremendous powers to the provinces that they have never had before on the training and employment side.

If a province doesn't want to agree to any of that, then we won't spend the money in the province. If that's what she's suggesting we should do, I'm sure the Province of Ontario would love to have more money for training and employment initiatives that we spend in other provinces.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I would like to respond to that comment. If Mr. Nault is surprised by my statement, it's because he doesn't follow the news from Quebec. If I were the only one to think this way, he might be right. However, you know that what I'm expressing is the consensus in Quebec...

An honourable member: A certain consensus.

Ms. Lalonde: ...on the Liberal labour force policy. It's therefore important to point that out. This may be part of the research that some of you still want to conduct. In addition, many of us tend to believe that this is enough and it would be best if we put an end to this dialogue of the deaf.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded division, please.

[English]

The Chairman: A roll call vote has been requested.

Clause 31 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive agreed to on division

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I have a question about clause 34, Mr. Chairman. Can I ask it?

The Chairman: All right.

Ms. Lalonde: It's really a technical question; I would like to understand the meaning of what is stated in subsection 2:

Mr. McFee: We are not answering the question because we can't find the sentence the honourable member is referring to.

Ms. Lalonde: Oh! I went and looked.

The Chairman: Can you help him find it?

Ms. Lalonde: It's certainly not of the same order as the preliminary objections that I expressed, but I would like to have the answer later.

The Chairman: Have you finished your comments?

Ms. Lalonde: Yes.

Clause 35 - Transfer of appropriations

[English]

The Chairman: We have a government amendment to clause 35.

Mr. Bevilacqua: It is that clause 35 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 28 on page 13 and substituting the following:

Clause 35 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to on division

On clause 38 - Definitions

Mr. Bevilacqua: There's an amendment: that clause 38 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 15 and substituting the following:

Clause 38 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 39 agreed to on division

On clause 40 - Rights and obligations transferred

The Chairman: There's a government amendment to clause 40.

Mr. Nault: That's the French version, Mr. Chairman: (a) by striking out line 24 on page 15 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

[English]

(b) by striking out line 27 on page 15 and substituting:

[Translation]

.1645

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 40 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 41 - Commencement of legal proceedings

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that the French version of clause 41 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 36 and 37 on page 15 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

tives aux obligations contractées ou aux responsabilités encourues par l'ancienne Commission

Amendment carries on division

Clause 41 as amended carries on division

[English]

Clauses 42 to 45 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 46

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 46 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 9 to 12 on page 17 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 46 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to on division

On clause 49

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 49 of Bill C-96 be amended (a) by striking out line 37 on page 17 and substituting the following:

The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Ms. Lalonde, you have a question?

Ms. Lalonde: Subsection 49(1), at the top of page 18, states:

What does this refer to?

It says:

Mr. McFee: It's a breakdown of the department's various classes of employees. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know that some are called employees and others officers. It all depends on their duties. However, they are part of the department. It's only a legal breakdown of the employees.

Ms. Lalonde: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

The amendment carries on division

Clause 49 as amended carries on division

[English]

On clause 50

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 50 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 40 on page 18 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 50 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 51 agreed to on division

.1650

Clause 52 agreed to on division

[Translation]

Clauses 53 to 57 inclusively carry on division

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bevilacqua, I understand you have an amendment?

Mr. Bevilacqua: It's a new clause, 57.1.

The Chairman: This is the place to put it in.

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that Bill C-96 be amended by adding, immediately after line 16 on page 20, the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I would like someone to explain to me what this changes. It doesn't affect the same people, namely the artists, the producers...

Could someone from the department explain this to me?

[English]

The Chairman: Could the officials perhaps give us a brief explanation of the importance of clause 57.1?

Mr. Robert Cook (Counsel, Department of Human Resources Development): You'll note that in clause 57 there's a reference to the Minister of Labour; that's being changed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. That minister is being given responsibility for financial matters relating to the Canada Labour Relations Board.

There was no mention of the status of the artists tribunal. It was an oversight. The Minister of Human Resources Development will also be responsible for its financial matters. So we wanted to make sure that there is a reference to the status of the artists tribunal in this bill.

Clause 58 agreed to on division

On clause 59

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 59 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 25 to 28 on page 20 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 59 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to on division

On clause 62

Mr. Bevilacqua: I move that clause 62 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 18 on page 21 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 62 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 63

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: Paragraph (d) of the old legislation says that a public servant can provide confidential information. Therefore is the difference simply the replacement of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Is that the only difference?

Mr. McFee: The difference is that it's the Income Tax Act that is amended to refer to our department, the department as proposed in the bill.

Ms. Lalonde: But it is not amended...

Mr. McFee: There is no amendment in substance, only in the wording.

Ms Lalonde: Thank you.

.1655

The Chairman: Is that okay, Ms Lalonde?

Ms Lalonde: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bevilacqua, do you want to present your amendment?

Mr. Bevilacqua: Yes. I move that clause 63 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 30 on page 21 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 63 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 64 to 66 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 67

The Chairman: Any comment from the officials?

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: I'd like to have my say concerning clause 65. You've already carried it. May I still comment, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms Lalonde: This is the third time that there are clauses - things are going very quickly - that state that pursuant to former Acts, a report was to be tabled before Parliament. I've noticed that these three sections, which forced the minister responsible to table bills before Parliament, have been repealed.

The Chairman: Repealed? They disappeared.

Ms Lalonde: Therefore, repealed. Those are the amendments. The report to Parliament disappears with those three clauses.

The Chairman: Why?

Ms Lalonde: I'll come back to it. It's the same thing for clause 66. I looked at the end of the Act to see if there was another section saying that the new minister reports to Parliament. There is nothing of the kind.

[English]

The Chairman: Any comment from the officials on that point?

[Translation]

Mr. McFee: The member is quite right when she says that the annual reports will cease to be. I think that the last time we met, we talked about it. The bill's intent is to replace annual reports with the annual estimates submitted to the House of Commons, when the department's business is considered by the members.

Concerning the new department, the point is to cut production costs for these things. But the information that would have been in those reports will still be presented to the House of Commons and also, I think, to the committee.

The Chairman: Very well. Are there any other comments?

Ms Lalonde: We'll come back to that; not now, but I want to emphasize it right away.

Mr. Dubé: Get ready.

The Chairman: You're against the idea of cutting the paperwork.

Ms Lalonde: Democracy, in this matter, means paperwork.

Mr. Dubé: Otherwise, you reduce the amount of information given to Parliament.

The Chairman: We're on clause 67. There is a proposed amendment to this clause.

[English]

Mr. McCormick: I have an amendment on that. I move that clause 67 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 23 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 67 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to on division

On clause 70

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 70 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 25 to 28 on page 23 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 70 as amended agreed to on division

[Translation]

Clause 71

Ms Lalonde: I have a question Mr. Chairman.

.1700

What is the impact of repealing the definition "means such officer of the Commission as is designated in writing by the Chairman thereof to act as an officer for the purposes of this Act"?

Mr. McFee: It's because the word "officer" refers to employees of the Commission. From now on, it won't have any, except as a legal entity, and the employees of the Commission will become employees of the department. That's the reason for the change.

Ms Lalonde: That's an answer that leads to another question. Will this transformation take place in a context, or might someone be able to require of an officer that they reveal information? Here, it says, "means such officer of the Commission as is designated in writing by the chairman thereof to act as an officer for the purposes of this Act".

Mr McFee: In the former Act?

Ms Lalonde: Yes, in the former Act.

Mr. McFee: I understand. The amendment does not change in any way the function or terms of reference of the employees. The only difference is that people who are Commission employees will become department employees. There is no change in terms of duties, powers, or qualifications. They'll do the same work as in the past.

Ms Lalonde: I understand that that person being recognized as "capable" might have had a certain influence, if you read clause 72, subsection 1. From now on, it's anybody. Is that it?

Mr. McFee: I understand the question. I could say that, in a way, that's not totally correct, but in fact, even if the name changes, what the person does doesn't change.

Maybe that's what I should have said when I answered the first time.

Ms Lalonde: Thank you.

Clauses 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 are carried on division.

Clause 76

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick, you have an amendment.

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 76 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 25 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 76 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 77 to 79 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 80

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 80 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 23 to 26 on page 26 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 80 as amended agreed to on division

Clauses 81 to 85 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 86

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 86 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 33 to 36 on page 27 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 86 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 87

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Chairman, I move that clauses 87 to 95 be carried, recognizing of course that my colleagues opposite may wish to speak to any one of these clauses before we vote on them. It just seems to me that it would speed up our process substantially.

.1705

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: This is the bill that I had the most questions about, because it seems to me that it includes other kinds of changes.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you proposing that clauses 87 through 95 carry on division?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I have some real questions to ask.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's hear the questions. When the questions are heard we'll deal with the motion to put the clauses together.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: It's about the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seems to me that the changes have more of an effect on that legislation, beyond the technical details. Clause 89 stipulates the following:

Before, the Act stipulated:

Yet if we put ourselves in the recipient's place, the direction given by the Commission represents something that's rather broad: it could be anyone. When it was the officer, it could have been Joseph, Arthur or Ken who told him, "do this". Sometimes officers say different things. When someone wants to claim a particular right, he says, "Ken told me, on such and such a day, to do that".

The Chairman: What clause are you talking about?

Ms. Lalonde: Clause 89. If you look at the opposite page, you'll see that the current Act says:

However, here it says "given to him or her by the Commission". That is truly different. It's true for the various acts, but different officials may give different directions.

Consequently, when someone has followed the directions given by an official, and claims something because he had problems with the way the Act was applied, or... In my view, it is extremely important that the wording remain the same. In any event, we are going to come back to this at report stage because this has to do with the recipient's rights; this is not a small technical amendment.

The Chairman: Could you explain why the word "officer" was removed?

Mr. McFee: It must be similar to what we said earlier. In the future, the employees will be employees of the department, not of the Commission. The other aspect of the change is that the English version has been corrected to make it neutral, referring to both genders.

Ms. Lalonde: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but that answer is a technical answer, while the question is not a technical one. The term "the Commission" is replacing the term "an officer". We could then say: "an employee of the Commission", but at a specific moment, it's a specific person who gave information to someone. The Commission itself could give three different pieces of information, leading to different conclusions, through three different employees. I'm thinking about the people who have to live with the way the Act will be applied. I would submit this point to my colleagues opposite.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further comment on that? Are we talking about something that materially alters the interpretation of that article in the unemployment insurance legislation?

[Translation]

Mr. McFee: The answer is no, but I do believe that Ms. Lalonde is sincere in what she is saying. We will check with the drafter to be sure about the powers of the officers. I myself have been using this word for years.

.1710

The Commission's employees deal with workers who are collecting benefits with a view to helping them find employment. If these recipients aren't following the officers' directions, the Act allows for certain penalties.

I would just like to say that the substance of this clause is not changing. First of all, we are eliminating the word "he" in the Act, replacing it with "he or she" in the English version. Secondly, we must recognize that if the bill is adopted, the employees will no longer be employees of the Commission, but rather, employees of the department. So it's the wording that's being changed, but even so, I will make a commitment to check this quickly because we need to clear up this aspect of the clause.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. If there is a further need for clarification, the government can do so at report stage. Thank you, Ms Lalonde, for bringing the matter to our attention. Is there anything else?

Ms Lalonde: You may have noticed that elsewhere there is mention of an affidavit by "a person authorized by the Commission", which would replace "an official of the Commission." You may look at it from that angle.

The Chairman: Is there anything else?

Ms Lalonde: One moment, I have another question. Oh, I see. It is "an authorized person." That's fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, I'll now follow the approach of Mrs. Catterall.

Clauses 87 to 95 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 96

The Chairman: We'll hear the amendment and then we'll hear the question.

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 96 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 12 on page 35 and substituting the following:

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Do you have a question, Ms Lalonde?

Mr. Dubé: While we're waiting, can I ask a question about the amendment? What will it change? What impact will it have?

[English]

Mr. Cook: This is an amendment that was prepared by the drafters. It's going to appear in the Department of Health act as well. The present wording just provides...``unless the context otherwise requires'' is fairly soft wording to allow somebody to look at a provision and determine whether it really relates to the powers of the human resources minister or to the powers to the health minister. So this phrase was added, ``or unless the relevant power, duty or function has been assigned to another minister'', to make it easier for people looking at this particular proposed act and, for example, the Department of Health Act to determine whether the reference is to the human resources minister or to the health minister. So it's a further clarification and nothing more than that.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: Is that what it says in the Act? I haven't seen it, since this section begins by talking about the fact that one has access to written or verbal information obtained by someone, the commissioners, the employees of the department... So we would add... It's not very clear.

Mr. McFee: Unless I misunderstood, you thought the last...

Ms Lalonde: I was trying to figure it out.

Mr. McFee: The meaning of section 96? Many of these sections don't exist in the previous Act, because they are transitional measures or small changes which have come about because of the creation of the Department of Human Resources Development.

.1715

As my colleague explained, it's just that kind of change.

Mr. Dubé: When another minister is mentioned, it may lead to potential court action depending on how you interpret a provision. Who decides whether it falls under one department rather than another? In fact, why would something fall under one department and not under another?

Mr. McFee: I believe there were ten bills which covered this subject. When so many bills are drafted to amend government departments, there are always lots of references. So the National Health Act, for instance, will contain several references to our department. And we will do the same regarding other departments.

We have just discussed a section concerning an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In order not to diminish its significance, most changes are what are called cross-references to make sure that, in certain cases, an act is not in existence anymore.

So when that kind of situation arises, you find this kind of cross-reference...

[English]

It's sort of like dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

[Translation]

Ms Lalonde: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe this section is quite significant because it concerns access to written or verbal information obtained by the department. It says that only commissioners, employees of the department, in the course of their duty, and other persons authorized by the minister to access the information, may do so.

It's completely different when another department may be responsible. This means that the information...

[English]

Ms Burnett: If I may, I think we are on two different sections. You're discussing section 96 of the UI act; we just gave you an explanation for section 96 of the HRD act.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: That's what I thought. That was quick. You haven't answered all my questions.

Mr. McFee: We don't know what it's like not to answer a question.

Ms. Lalonde: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Is that all, Ms. Lalonde? This is what happens when we try to study two bills in the same afternoon.

[English]

We're at the amendment now.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions?

Ms. Lalonde: I'm sorry, but the numbers confused me. I didn't think section 95 was that long. I have another important question on section 95, if you don't mind.

Subsection (1) and (2) of section 94...

[English]

Mr. Bevilacqua: We're on clause 96 right now.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I apologize, but I thought section 95 came first.

This will be useful. I won't be long, Mr. Bevilacqua, and it might address some of your concerns.

On page 33a, on the left, it says:

.1720

Mr. McFee: In the act, it says: "a person employed in the administration of this act", which, by definition, must be a person employed by the department.

Ms. Lalonde: Under (d), it's the same thing.

Mr. McFee: That's correct.

Mrs. Lalonde: I'm referring to citizens who deal with specific public servants. They will still have to have the right to say: "Mr. or Ms. so and so". Thank you.

The Chairman: Let's get back to section 96 and to the amendment.

[English]

Amendment agreed to

Clause 96 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 97 agreed to on division

On clause 98

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 98 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 21 to 24 on page 36 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 98 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 99

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 99 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 29 on page 36 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 99 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 100

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 100 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 13 on page 37 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 100 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 101 - Bill C-52 without Bill C-54

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 101 of Bill C-96 be amended (a) by striking out line 35 on page 37 and substituting the following:

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 101 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 102 - Bill C-52 and Bill C-54

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 102 of Bill C-96 be amended (a) by striking out line 26 on page 39 and substituting the following:

.1725

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 102 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 103 agreed to on division

On clause 104 - Bill C-54 without Bill C-52

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. McCormick: I move that clause 104 of Bill C-96 be amended (a) by striking out line 5 on page 42 and substituting the following:

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Why is there no (e) in the French version?

Mrs. Lalonde: That's right.

Mr. McFee: I'm sorry.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick's going to have to read it out again in French.

Mr. McCormick: I don't mind. It would bother the opposition more than it would me because they would pick out my mistakes more.

The Chairman: Could we have an explanation?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: You do that very well.

Ms. Burnett: Sometimes, we say "the Commission" instead of the "Employment Insurance Commission".

Ms. Lalonde: There is (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in the English version, but there is only (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the French version.

Mr. McFee: It's simply a reference to the Commission, and not the full title. So it's not necessary to make a change because it's simply a reference to the Commission.

Mr. Dubé: In other words, it's implicit.

Ms. Lalonde: It's implicit in French, but it has to be spelled out in English.

The Chairman: That's right. Things are implicit in French, but they have to be explicit in English.

Ms. Lalonde: Exactly.

The Chairman: Got it.

[English]

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 104 as amended agreed to on division

[Translation]

Ms. Catterall: It gives me great pleasure to move that sections 105 to 186 be adopted...

The Chairman: Section 111 is the last section of the bill.

Ms. Catterall: That's right.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand the motion. I will make the proposal.

Shall clauses 105 through 111 carry?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: We'd like a recorded vote, please.

[English]

The Chairman: We have a roll call vote requested.

.1730

Clauses 105 to 111 inclusive agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: A recorded vote, please.

[English]

Bill C-96 as amended agreed to on division: yeas 5; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

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

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, please say you agree.

Ms. Lalonde: Yes, I agree.

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Unanimous.

I'd like to thank the officials for their assistance and their patience, and on that note, I adjourn for the afternoon.

;