[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order.
The first item of business is to strike a subcommittee to study a bill. It's a housekeeping motion. I think the motions have been distributed to all members of the committee.
I'll ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour to give us a quick overview of Bill C-3. We'll be striking the committee thereafter.
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bill C-3 provides a mechanism with respect to nuclear facilities regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board that will allow for the incorporation by reference of provincial labour legislation.
Nuclear facilities are under federal jurisdiction. This was confirmed in 1993 by a Supreme Court of Canada decision. It ruled that part I of the Canada Labour Code applies to employees of Ontario Hydro working in the company's nuclear power plants. Previously, all of Ontario Hydro, including nuclear facilities, was thought to be subject to provincial jurisdiction.
In essence, the Supreme Court decision created a split labour jurisdiction in one company. This bill will provide the mechanism whereby occupational health and safety will go back to being administered by the province. That's what it is about.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Proud. I understand there were discussions among the three parties as to the membership of this subcommittee.
Does everybody have all the motions now? Okay. Perhaps we could deal with them in a package.
The first is a motion by Anna Terrana. It was agreed that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development be established. This subcommittee is to be composed of Mr. Larry McCormick as chair, with George Proud, Réal Ménard, Dale Johnston and Bonnie Brown. It is to study Bill C-3, an act to amend the Labour Code, and to report thereon to the committee. It was also agreed that on presentation of said report it be deemed adopted and that the Chairman of the committee present it to the House on behalf of the committee.
On a motion by Anna Terrana, it was agreed that when the Chair of the subcommittee is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the subcommittee, he or she shall designate a member of the subcommittee to act as chair at or during the said meeting.
.1540
On a motion by Anna Terrana, it was agreed that the subcommittee be empowered, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers, and records to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and to authorize the Chair to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present and to authorize the printing thereof.
On a motion by Anna Terrana, it was agreed that the committee authorize the allocation of sufficient funds from its budget to the subcommittee for the payment of reasonable travel and living expenses to witnesses appearing before the subcommittee.
On a motion by Anna Terrana, it was agreed that a research officer be provided to the subcommittee by the Library of Parliament.
Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): The first motion refers to the fact that the subcommittee will be composed of certain individuals. Could we perhaps add that if ever one of these individuals was unable to attend the meeting - for example, Mr. Ménard is the sole Official Opposition representative - , another member of the main committee could substitute for him?
[English]
The Chairman: The same substitution applies to subcommittees as it does to the main committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. Then, we could still function?
[English]
The Chairman: Exactly.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Therefore, there are three government representatives, one from...
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, there are: Mr. Proud, parliamentary secretary for labour, Bonnie Brown, and the Chair; and one each.
Is that okay?
Seconded by Ms Augustine.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: At this point, since we're going to be relying a lot on people's help in this committee because we'll be dealing with many difficult issues that require all sorts of administrative help.... I didn't do this last time. I should have introduced to you - many of you know him - Mr. Luc Fortin, the clerk of the committee; Mr. Pierre Rodrigue, the committee clerk, and Mary Hurley, the research officer. Sandra Harder isn't here today, but she's also part of our team.
On behalf of the committee, I certainly would like to thank you very much. We look forward to an excellent relationship as we go through the employment insurance bill and other bills that I'm sure will be presented and dealt with by this committee.
Let's move on to the next item. Have you all received the schedule? I just want to make sure everybody is dealing with the same document. The first page has the week of March 11; March 11 to March 15. The second page deals with the week of March 18 through to March 22. The third week is March 25 to Friday, March 29. The fourth page is April 1 to April 5. The following page is April 8 to April 12. Then the following page is April 15 to 19...and then April 22 to April 26. Are we all dealing with the same document?
Now we need to discuss how we're going to deal with the hundred units and witnesses we were talking about in the last meeting.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As far as the number of units is concerned, it was my understanding that of the 100, the government would have 60, the Bloc 20 and the Reform Party 20, but this does not necessarily mean that there will be only 100 half-hour units, for a total of 50 hours. It is possible that in the course of the debate, we will find that we need more time.
The proportion is valid for all parties represented, but if there were only 80 units, as opposed to 120, the same proportion would nevertheless have to be respected.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. I think in the spirit of cooperation, if my recollection serves me correctly, there was an exchange between Ms Brown and Mr. Nault, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, on the issue of the units, where Mr. Nault had offered a greater number of units to the Reform Party.
.1545
My recollection also states that the same sort of dialogue did not occur between the government and the Bloc Québécois.
I am sure that the same courtesy can be extended to the Bloc Québécois, which would result in an augmentation of the number of units for the Bloc Québécois.
I would like to deal with this particular issue at this point in time, because it's extremely important as we try to figure out how we are going to deal with the number of units.
Are there any comments from the government side on this particular subject?
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): I thought we had agreed that we were firm on 100 units, that we would in some way agree on some of the national groups, and that, however we work it out with the agreements, we will be staying firm at 100 units.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): My understanding from Mr. Nault was that he intended to offer the same arrangement to both opposition parties, both the Reform Party and the Bloc.
The Chairman: Just for the record - I want to clarify this because it is very important - it is the responsibility of government members, as well as members of the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois, to decide when and if the number of units, to a maximum of two, are going to be utilized per witness. By that I mean that if, for example, the CSN appears in front of the committee, the Bloc may decide that they want to hear from them for an hour rather than a half hour. Since we are defining a unit as a half hour, it is important that you designate that particular intervener as being one where you would like to utilize two units.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: My question was not about the allocation of the units, as I believe the views expressed by the Reform Party member also hold for the Bloc Québécois. I don't think there is any problem on that score.
Rather, my question concerns the fact that the debate will be limited to 100 units. I didn't understand that the first time around. It was my understand that of the overall number of units, 60 would be allocated to the government, 20 to the Bloc Québécois and 20 to the Reform Party, but that there could be more than 100 half-hour units in total. We could receive some briefs... People have until March 23 to submit their briefs. We could receive some amendments along the way. Perhaps the Minister will submit amendments of his own before the... This is also a possibility. Ultimately, it is possible that we might have 120 units and I simply wanted to be certain that the 60, 20 and 20 allocation of the overall number of units is respected. It's possible that we could have over 100 units.
[English]
The Chairman: There was an agreement, which I thought was very clear, at the last meeting whereby we were going to deal with only 100 units. If I may also go a little bit further here -
Ms Augustine: Mr. Chairman, we would be willing to give up some of ours.
The Chairman: I don't know, Ms Augustine, if you feel comfortable with stating a number to the Bloc right at this point, whether it's five, ten, or fifteen. Do you require a little bit more time?
Ms Augustine: I thought maybe we could negotiate as we go along. When we see the national groups that are before us.... We might all want to have an hour with a national group.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): At the last meeting there was an expressed wish that at one point the minister would come back. That would be a good thing, because as we hear the briefs we'll accumulate questions that we might want to put to the minister.
When the minister and/or the officials come back, is that under the 100 units, or do we have that to commence our clause-by-clause consideration?
The Chairman: Yes, it is part of the 100 units.
Mr. Allmand: Part of our 60 then, I presume.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Allmand: Although it benefits the whole committee.
.1550
The Chairman: Exactly. As a matter of fact, it was Ms Brown who at the first meeting requested the appearance of the minister.
There was also an agreement, I thought, that perhaps we should hear from the minister not right away but later on, when the major points of view will be expressed by the interveners, so we can arrive at a better resolution of some of the questions we may have.
Is that fair?
Mr. Allmand: I think that's a good idea.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): With all due respect to everyone around this table, I concur with what Jean Augustine has said. It seems to me that if we're going to work in the spirit of cooperation here, then if we make any attempt to define ourselves too rigidly at the outset, not knowing what any of this is going to mean for us down the road, we really will do ourselves a disservice.
Quite frankly, what do 20 units really matter? If I find that this committee can work together to make decisions, then I don't need to have a number of hours or a number of units. To restrict myself to those kinds of limitations really is not doing this committee a service, because this is where - we are told this anyway - our best work as parliamentarians should indeed take place.
Those are my comments. I'm here to cooperate. I really want to get on with this. Numbers and units in little square boxes don't work for me. You might as well know that at the outset.
The Chairman: It's a point well taken, Ms Brown. However, I do want to set up a structure within which we can work.
For example, some issues were raised by the Bloc vis-à-vis not sitting on Monday, or at least not on Monday morning. There are also considerations I make for people, like yourself, who live far away from Ottawa, who might leave on Thursday night, or what have you, and cannot be here on Friday. These are things I do just to facilitate, in order to make life just a little bit better and easier for all the members of the committee.
There is definitely this benchmark of 100 units that we will be sticking to, because there was already a consensus.
Ms Augustine: Could we move on, then, and have some agreement that we'll have absolutely no night sittings and no Friday sittings? If we agree on no nights and no Fridays, then maybe we can go to the two Mondays we have on the list and see how we can negotiate around them.
The Chairman: Could you put that in the form of a formal motion?
Ms Augustine: I move that we stay firm at 100 units. I also move that we agree on no night sittings and also no Friday sittings.
The Chairman: Moved by Ms Augustine, seconded by Anna Terrana. Debate?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): We are talking about the period prior to clause-by-clause consideration, are we not?
[English]
The Chairman: That's correct, yes. Perhaps you can make a friendly amendment to that. Is that possible? What you're talking about is the period when we'll be hearing the presentations.
Ms Augustine: I took that for granted, because you were talking about 100 units. I also thought we were talking about the period prior to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: Perfect.
Mrs. Lalonde: I was not there long enough. How many groups have asked to be heard? My question is, can we hear all those people?
When history will be studying you, this bill will be the most important that you Liberals will have left on the table.
Ms Augustine: She's worried about it.
Mrs. Lalonde: The argument can be useful - no?
The Chairman: Just for the record, the clerk informs me that 229 people have asked to appear. I don't know how you want to work this, but we will listen to as many people as possible or as many people as can fit into the 100 units marked. That is something we've established.
.1555
Of course, Madame Lalonde, as a member of the committee you have the right to move a motion to reconsider the issue, but I thought it was quite clear at the last meeting that that was what we had established.
Mr. Proud: One of the things brought up at the first meeting was that there was a possibility - and the 100 was firm as far as I was concerned - that if more than one group wished to speak on the same issue, then they could be heard at the same time.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Proud: That will speed up the process somewhat, and everybody will be getting their word across.
The Chairman: Also, people should know that when briefs are forwarded to the committee they are also analysed and are part and parcel of the committee hearings. That also should be very clear.
Mrs. Brown: Something of which Francine should be aware is that indeed there was an expectation that, where possible, briefs would be submitted before the attendance by the interveners. That's been a consistent problem.
In the spirit of cooperation, we talked about how, indeed, we were going to facilitate the process, but one of the conditions that was attached was that wherever possible, and hopefully in every instance, we would have the briefs well and truly beforehand.
That will make the session ever so much more profitable to all of us, to the interveners and witnesses as well as ourselves.
The Chairman: The clerk has instructed the interveners to provide the briefs as soon as possible.
Mr. Allmand: With respect to the 229, I think I looked at that list. The reason for allocating 60 units to the government and 20 to the Bloc and 20 to Reform - and I believe that good fences make good neighbours - is that where there is a difference of opinion on the validity or the value of witnesses, the Bloc and the Reform Party and the Liberal members can pick from those 229 who they think will make valuable contributions or arguments with respect to the bill.
From my viewing of the list, I think that obviously there is a lot of duplication there. I've been through two previous bills on this, but I don't know who some people are. There are always people who will ask to speak who have no expertise or background, and there are others who will have a lot to say, some of it being controversial.
I was going to suggest simply that the parties look at the list and that they put forward names to fill up their hours or their units. In that way, we'll get a well-balanced list of witnesses.
Some of those that aren't on the list can of course be asked to send in their briefs. I hope that the staff of the committee will analyse their briefs and give us a breakdown of those who wish to say something but cannot be heard, but nevertheless their views will be summarized and presented to us, so that when we come to vote on the various clauses we'll know how others who weren't heard might stand on these issues.
The Chairman: That is a good point.
Mrs. Brown: With respect to those comments, Mr. Allmand, I would like you to know that we listened to the instruction of the Chair when we were putting forward witnesses. That indeed was that the individuals would have something of a professional nature to offer this group. We have put forward only ten names. These are individuals who we believe will be able to add something to the discussions.
Regarding the 229, I am very interested to hear where they all came from. Am I misguided here? Was ten not enough? Did you want more?
Mr. Allmand: In my own riding I've had all sorts of people who've heard about the bill who want to be heard on it. Obviously, the 229 have come from people who've heard about the bill and know that there are going to be public hearings and they have sent their request to the clerk.
Mrs. Brown: Given that we put the ten forward in a thoughtful manner and as requested by the Chair, it is imperative that they be individuals or professionals who will add something to the discussion here. I expect that these individuals would be here.
Mr. Allmand: You have a right to twenty, as a matter of fact.
The Chairman: She may exercise the right to use -
Mrs. Brown: But these ten are extremely important.
The Chairman: You might want to question them for an hour.
Mrs. Brown: That's exactly right.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I have a question about the numbers of people who want to appear. On the list you gave us there are 252.
The Chairman: It's an updated version, 252.
I think the points have more or less been stated.
Ms Augustine: Question.
The Chairman: Question?
.1600
Mrs. Brown: Just for the record, I really appreciate the fact that you were trying to accommodate me on Friday, but I have a duty day on Friday. My travel day will be Monday, so I won't be appearing in committee until the Tuesday. But I appreciate the dispensation that you gave and the consideration.
Someone else will be here on my behalf.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Has someone checked to see whether we have time to hear from all of the groups, perhaps by grouping some of them together? Frankly, I have not examined the list, but I do recall what happened with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We made every possible effort to hear from everyone. There was some redundancy, but overall, participants worked hard and made a contribution.
Perhaps I'm not the one to say so, but when the government says that the committee did not hear from everyone who wanted to be heard, this is not very good politics on its part, particularly when we are talking about only 250 persons, not 2,000. Perhaps some of these witnesses could be grouped together. Our approach is what matters.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: It matters little to me whether there are 100, 125, 200 or 90 witnesses. That's not the problem.
The problem is that there are people who want to have their views heard. Can we reasonably hear from everyone and announce in advance the day on which the meeting will be held, for example in Eastern Quebec - I don't know whether a meeting is scheduled for Vancouver or Victoria - so that people can prepare themselves? If necessary, we can try to group the witnesses together and allocate one hour to four groups? We could take this kind of approach. We must give everyone an opportunity to be heard.
[English]
The Chairman: Within the framework outlined and agreed upon by all parties on this committee, all efforts will be made to accommodate as many people as possible. If the clerk can report to us within a couple of days on whether we can have more than one group appear within the units as prescribed by the agreement, which was agreed upon by everyone here, then we will do that. I think it's quite reasonable, and I thank Madame Lalonde for her suggestion.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Has a decision been made as to when the Minister will meet with the committee? Will he make an appearance after we have heard from all of the witnesses and before the clause-by-clause consideration?
[English]
The Chairman: I remember discussions that took place at the last committee hearings, where I think there was a general consensus that the ministerial intervention or presentation would happen after we heard for maybe the first two and a half weeks. Then we would hear from the minister, because by then we would have heard some points of view and some of the challenges that this particular legislation places on Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: While we are still hearing from witnesses?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. Of course, as Chair I will ask the committee members when they are ready. But at the first meeting there was a general consensus that we would hear near the end or in the middle of the third week of hearings.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You mean after the Easter break?
[English]
The Chairman: Or just prior to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Prior the Easter break?
[English]
The Chairman: It could be, yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I needed to have this information. Could we decide right now on a date to hear from the residents of the Lower St-Lawrence who will be giving their testimony by teleconference? On the same day, we will hear from residents of Rivière-du-Loup, the Gaspé, Rimouski and possibly the Maritimes. I would agree to our scheduling the meeting for Thursday, March 28.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I think that these -
Ms Augustine: Mr. Chairman, my motion is still on the floor. Could we dispense with this? Call the question on it, and then we will be able to deal with the others.
The Chairman: Okay.
.1605
The Clerk of the Committee: The motion was that the committee adopt 100 units to hear witnesses, and that the committee won't sit evenings or on Fridays.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like us to have a registered vote on this.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. It will be a registered vote.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
The Chairman: If I can return to an issue raised by the members of the Bloc Québécois at the last meeting in reference to Monday, there was, I think, an issue raised as to the availability of....
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As long as we don't forget what I just said about possible dates. We ended the debate on this issue when the member called for a vote on his motion. I would simply like us to remember what I said. We can resolve the Monday question, however, I would also like us to decide, if possible, which days will be allocated to hearing witnesses from the regions or to other such things.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. I would just....
Ms Augustine, do you want to speak on this issue - you had your hand up - in reference to Monday?
Ms Augustine: We have to look to the Bloc, because we were going to deal with the Monday issue with respect to the expressions made last meeting. Mondays seemed to be difficult, especially Monday mornings. In that light, I was going to ask that we reconsider Monday mornings with respect to the Bloc, but I'll let Mr. Crête speak for himself.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Probably with the government's support.
[English]
The Chairman: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We would not be sitting Monday mornings?
[English]
The Chairman: That's right. The issue you raised, Mr. Crête, if I remember correctly, was that Monday morning posed a challenge.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All day Monday poses a problem.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. But I think the afternoon.... We have to sit at least these four days a week.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I realize that this a different position.
[English]
The Chairman: On the Monday mornings, there may be some flexibility on just sitting Mondays 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. - up until 6 p.m. - and deleting three of the Monday mornings that are in here, because we do have extra units we can move.
Ms Augustine, is that correct? Does that reflect what I heard in the last meeting?
Ms Augustine: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Monday is set aside for riding business. Nothing would be resolved if we were to sit only in the afternoon. If we were to sit in the afternoon, it's just as if we were not in the riding, and perhaps even worse. If we had to sit all day Monday, we would have no other choice but to postpone our riding day until Friday. However, if we decided to sit only in the afternoon on Mondays, then we would be falling into a trap.
[English]
The Chairman: If I may suggest, can we then...?
Mr. Crête, it would be impossible because we won't be meeting the target, but we could delete the entire Monday on the 25th.
Mr. Crête: March 25.
[Translation]
You would eliminate it completely?
.1610
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Allmand: It's an election day.
What's happening on March 18? Are we busy on the morning and afternoon on March 18?
The Chairman: Yes, morning and afternoon on March 18.
Is there a consensus? Do I need a formal motion for this?
An hon. member: No.
The Chairman: Is everybody agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Lalonde: I want to make sure it's clear that in clause-by-clause study the same rules don't apply.
The Chairman: Yes, and we will get to that next.
What we have done basically is deleted March 25, and we've agreed on the timetable up to the parliamentary recess. Is that correct?
Mr. Allmand: About the many people or many organizations that write in and want to be heard and our not being able to hear them all, it's not a question of not hearing them all; it's hearing them verbally. I think the letter that's prepared by the clerk and signed by the clerk or signed by you as Chair should point that out. It should be absolutely clear that we're interested in hearing everybody, but some will appear before the committee and for some we will analyse their briefs and take their recommendations and suggestions into account. I would hope somebody in our research branch or the clerk's branch in fact will make a list of the comments: for example, group A favour this or oppose this; group C...and so on. Even though they hadn't appeared, we will have the results of their input.
The Chairman: That's correct.
Mr. Allmand: So nobody will be refused a hearing in the sense that we won't get their views, but we will not have everybody before the committee.
The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, I can guarantee... We met earlier on today to deal with that particular issue. The points you raise will be dealt with. Basically what you're telling Canadians is that consultation takes various forms -
Mr. Allmand: Right.
The Chairman: - including that of a brief. That's duly noted.
I need some guidance on this particular issue as it relates to the parliamentary recess and its direct relationship to clause-by-clause. I know at this point, because we've really not delved into the bill yet, it would be quite difficult and improper for me to ask how many days committee members would spend on clause-by-clause. But I would need some guidance in a week or two, I would say, as to how many days in fact we will need for clause-by-clause.
Also, since we're talking about clause-by-clause, departmental officials will be present throughout the clause-by-clause process. So if there are any questions to ask, we will follow the tradition, as established by traditions of Parliament, that we will have that type of expertise ready at all times to answer questions.
The reason why I bring this point up is that if committee members decide somehow they will need two weeks to do clause-by-clause, then we will have to look seriously at sitting during the parliamentary recess, because we will need more time to deal with clause-by-clause.
Are there any comments on that?
Ms Augustine: Mr. Chairman, looking at the week of April 22 to April 26, we have clause-by-clause Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. It seems to me that since we have to negotiate again around the Friday sitting, we can also look at an additional two days being available within that week.
The Chairman: Within the parliamentary recess week, or...?
Ms Augustine: No, within the week of -
The Chairman: April 22 and 26.
Ms Augustine: - April 22.
The Chairman: Is there a formal motion to...? Also, just for clarification here, when we were talking about the hearings we stipulated certain regulations, i.e., no sitting evenings and so on. Now, the same rules do not apply to the clause-by-clause week. Is that correct?
Ms Augustine: Yes, that's right.
The Chairman: Okay.
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Clause-by-clause consideration will depend a great deal on the amendments that the Minister will put forward. If the amendments do away with five, six, seven, eight or ten irritants on the list of those identified at the outset and if the clauses are drafted properly, taking into account the concerns raised, then clause-by-clause consideration could take less time. However, if we aren't given a list of amendments, it could take much longer because it will involve considerably more work for us. Will we be receiving the list of amendments before undertaking the clause-by-clause consideration?
[English]
The Chairman: I think the role of the members of Parliament in this committee during the next three to four weeks is to generate the types of solutions that are required to fix some of the challenges that Canadians have with the employment insurance bill.
When the minister appears, I think the types of amendments and changes that he's entertaining will become evident to the members of the committee. The simple thing to do is to ask him when he comes here.
So by then we shall have a better idea of how to gauge this clause-by-clause consideration.
Just so we can organize the committee, can we deal with the clause-by-clause consideration vis-à-vis the times we'll be sitting to deal with it and the number of days?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I said that I wanted to look at this. There are a total of 187 clauses. The Unemployment Insurance Act decides the fate of ordinary people, the future of millions of people. Sometimes, everything hinges on a comma, a period... Right now, many people are working to implement the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now, everything is being turned upside-down.
I feel that I have an important responsibility weighing on my shoulders because two things are involved here. Firstly, there is the money aspect, and you are going to hear much a lot said about this because I don't see why the unemployed should have to service the debt. That's the first point.
Secondly, the mechanics of the process have changed. Therefore, it is damned important, if you will pardon the expression, to take all the time we need. I realize that the honourable member is a lawyer, but she has to realize that compared to the previous situation, this is nightmarish in many ways. Our constituents are going to want to ask us questions about this. I can't tell you that we are only going to allocate a certain number of hours, that we will vote quickly and so forth. I will honestly try to come up with a figure.
[English]
The Chairman: No. I know all the members of the committee quite well, and I think you will find that we will be operating in the spirit of improving the piece of legislation that is in front of us.
If I have interpreted well his thoughts and what he has said earlier, even when he appeared before the prorogation, the minister intends to make some changes to improve the legislation; for example, in relationship to seasonal workers.
We as members must also be guided by our own selves, our contribution. As the Chair, I will be listening very carefully to the contribution of each particular member, because I want to find out whether or not the thoughts expressed are ideas that can find realization within the amendments and the changes of the bill.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): I wonder if my honourable colleagues from the Bloc would agree that perhaps the three days and the two half days and the one day are not enough, but if we devoted that week.... This has been said before, but I wondered if there would be agreement for a motion that we could do it between Monday and Friday.
Do you know how many hours there are in five days?
There is a limit to how long we can debate points. We also have to move with this legislation. That's why we're having a lot of witnesses.
We want to work with you - and I think there has been good cooperation here - but how much more can you debate over and over?
Think about the last bill we did.
Mr. Allmand: The amount of time required for clause-by-clause consideration will depend, as Mr. Crête says, on how many amendments we have. The more amendments you have, the longer it will take. Consequently I think it's premature to decide exactly now.... You've put aside so many days for clause-by-clause, but you haven't finalized it, and you've left the whole two weeks of the recess free. I would suggest we have a few weeks of hearings before we make a final decision, and maybe hear the minister.
.1620
We should decide the total package for clause-by-clause before we recess at Easter, but I don't think today we can. If the minister comes and says I'm willing to make an amendment on this, an amendment on that, it will go quicker. If he says he's not going to make it, it will go slower.
But I think you're right in trying to get a fix on it. But why don't we wait a few weeks before we finalize the clause-by-clause? For the moment we have all that week of April 1 and we have the week following Easter. If we need them, absolutely we'll take them.
The Chairman: Just to clarify the point here, if by the end of March 21, which is a Thursday - or we can go till March 26, maybe - we find we're into a situation where...or, say, right after we hear the minister we're in a situation where we're going to be engaged in clause-by-clause for five, six, seven, eight days, then I would propose to the committee that some of the local organizations that are scheduled to appear between April 15 and April 19 be pushed forward to the parliamentary recess week of April 1 to April 4.
Mr. Allmand: I would agree with that, Mr. Chair, but we don't have to make that decision today. Maybe if we wait a week or so to see how.... That's why it's important to have the minister at a point not too late but not too soon.
The Chairman: I just want to bring it to the attention of the committee. That's what I'm thinking.
Mr. Allmand: I agree with you. Then we could use those other days for the local organizations for clause-by-clause.
The Chairman: Okay. So that's it.
Mrs. Terrana: We still have evenings for clause-by-clause. It's not the end of the world if we work in the evenings.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mrs. Terrana: That's another possibility. We have the Thursday, we have the Friday; we have the evenings.
The Chairman: That's perfect. I think we're all in agreement on clause-by-clause.
I have a motion here that will allow the House to tape, for broadcast purposes, its video teleconferences during its study of Bill C-12, so CPAC can play it. I'm going to read the motion, and I need a person to move it. It's that the Chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development be authorized to seek permission from the House to tape for broadcast purposes its video teleconferences during its study of Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
Mr. Regan: I so move.
Mr. McCormick: I second the motion.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: What kind of preparations are being made for the debate? Today, as you know, I met with some union representatives who indicated to me that their submission will be heard on Thursday and I have yet to be informed of this fact. I looked at my E-mail and I saw no such announcement. It's ridiculous. I had scheduled an important meeting and I learned of this today, quite by chance.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, of course the clerk has the responsibility to inform all the members of who is appearing and when. I'm sure you will find the notices in your office.
Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: There were some -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: At 12 noon, there was still nothing there.
The Clerk: Amended notices were sent out this afternoon.
Mrs. Lalonde: This afternoon! What about the deadline? Again, are we going to get the information the day before? We have to get organized.
.1625
[English]
The Chairman: I can only tell you personally, as the Chair, that I would prefer to receive it as soon as possible. I think the same courtesy will be extended to all members of the committee. As soon as the team we have here can produce the list it will be forwarded to you. I'm sure the clerk takes this as an order from the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: He is an amazing man.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: I think we were trying to get the things on track as quickly as possible for this week. I would expect next week we'll get more notice.
The Chairman: It will be smooth sailing, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: Very smooth.
The Chairman: As a point of clarification for those individuals who were present at the last meeting, I just want to see if there's going to be a consensus here on acceptance. Mr. Proud is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. From time to time we'll be dealing with labour issues. I would like to know from the committee if there's general agreement here to accept either Mr. Proud or Mr. Nault if they can exchange at the steering committee level, because sometimes we'll be dealing with Mr. Proud's legislation. Do you see a problem with that?
Ms Augustine: No problem.
Mr. Allmand: Agreed.
The Chairman: I thought that point had to be clarified.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: This morning, you referred to the striking of the committee on Bill C-3. Has the motion to this effect been adopted?
Mr. Crête: Yes, it has.
Mrs. Lalonde: Only with respect to C-3?
Mr. Crête: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: We won't always agree to having only one member of our party on the committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, that's one issue. I'm talking about the steering committee. Sometimes Mr. Proud will be replacing Mr. Nault because we'll be dealing with labour issues.
The meeting is adjourned.