EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

.1015

[English]

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

Mrs. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Chairman, before we go on to anything else, I would like to raise a matter of privilege.

When we sat last week, I was personally insulted by statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary. As a member of Parliament and the official opposition critic on human resource development, I can only strongly denounce what was to me an attack on my rights and privileges as a member of Parliament to accept myself freely and be recognized as such.

If you please, I would like you to accept this matter of privilege and the motion that I want to table after having established a breach of my privilege as a member.

[English]

The Chairman: It's accepted.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, since the elections, I have sat on this committee continuously. Together with other members of the committee, I think that I have worked very hard, with as much seriousness and sense of responsibility as it was possible to provide. I must say that I greatly enjoy working on this committee. We have had difficult moments. Sometimes we debated with a great of deal of emotion, but to my knowledge, we have never insulted one another.

We had debates and we held on to our views. Many things come between us; we are sovereignists and we have never hidden that fact. However, when it came to the very important subject matter before this committee, where we are discussing peoples' needs, where opposition members have their constraints, namely not being in power and where government members also have constraints, namely being in power and not always being able to vote with their heart, our participation never flagged no matter what.

Let me remind you of the committee's travels throughout the country about social program reform. People sometimes think members of Parliament travel in golden carriages, but these soon became rather rickety planes that looked so unsafe at first glance that my eminent colleague opposite preferred to use her own travel points that she had accumulated personally rather than travel on those planes. Getting up at 6 o'clock in the morning, sitting until midnight without ever being available to the many witnesses who appeared before us and before you, that was what that tour was all about.

We in opposition have always travelled at least in pairs throughout Canada, trying to understand and defend the interests of all, always being available and prepared to work. We haven't always agreed with you, but that's our role.

Mr. Chairman, you'll no doubt understand that the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary were profoundly hurtful and offensive. Let me recall what was said for the benefit of those who weren't here.

After having stated that the end of the day may not have been the best time for the officials to present a voluminous document filled with statistics, and after having glanced around the table, I thought that was obvious and I asked that the officials give us a quick overview. I suggested that we read the document, that we be allowed to examine them, that we ask certain questions and that we see the officials again on Tuesday, as was already planned.

.1020

The parliamentary secretary first stated that he feared that I collapse on you, did he say. Later on, when I reworded my suggestion, he said this:

[English]

``I'm worried about your health. When you get to a certain age, you have to get your sleep. I know.''

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, this sentence is a manifestation of ageism, contempt and disrespect. It's inappropriate. One can have doubts about its political acumen, but above all, it's ageism. It's discrimination based on age.

Would he have asked a man that question? I'll leave that open, but I do know that the purpose of that question was either to silence me, or prevent me from making similar statements in the future.

Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely unacceptable for this committee and for the House of Commons to cast doubts on a statement, the truthfulness and relevance of statements and recommendations that someone might make because of their age. Have no fear, I don't think I look like an old fogey yet. I know I don't and I am in a good position to say that this is perfectly unacceptable. When someone is a member of Parliament, whether that person is 72 or 22, those statements have to be taken at face value.

Why did the parliamentary secretary to the Minister decide to attack me on the issue of age? Did he feel unable to convince his colleagues on the substance of the argument? Why did he attempt to muzzle me by saying that I was asking this question, it was because I needed sleep, which goes against common sense because everyone knows that as you age, you need less sleep.

Mr. Chairman, I'm raising this point of privilege and I repeat that this is the first time, despite the difficulties we have experienced and that we will experience in the future, that a person is attacked perhaps not ad hominem but ad mulierem.

I will table this proposal and I would like to point out - and I regret having to do so - but since the new parliamentary secretary arrived at this committee, the atmosphere and the relations between us have changed. Of course, there was the referendum, but precisely because there was the referendum, we have a mutual responsibility to prepare for the future.

I remember that at this very committee, when I had asked that we hear the Société québécoise de développement de la main d'oeuvre, which includes everyone who is anybody in Quebec, and for which I had a list of 15 or 16 names, the parliamentary secretary's reply was: I don't play separatist games.

.1025

Mr. Chairman, I was democratically elected, I am the official opposition critic and my rights as a member of Parliament cannot be breached. It seems to me that the committee must decide, since it has the power to do so, how it will proceed, whether it's insult or debate, and given that our mutual situation has some irritants.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development report to the House of Commons the statements made on April 18th by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development to the honourable member from Mercier, as the contemptuous nature of the said statements constituted and infringement on the member's freedom of speech.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I take any questions from other members, I'm going to limit myself to a simple comment that it was an unfortunate statement.

I'm also going to say that with age also comes wisdom. So I'm going to let Mr. Nault respond to the statement made by Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): I just want to say to my colleague that, quite frankly, it wasn't intended as an insult, it was intended as a bit of humour after a long day. If the member was offended, I'll take this opportunity to apologize. It wasn't intended to be taken that way.

Members who know me know that I tend to make comments that are intended to be in jest. It was not intended to be an insult against her, her age or anything else of that matter. It was just intended to suggest that we get on with our work. If she was offended by it, I apologize; it's as simple as that. It wasn't intended to be a major deal. Those comments go back and forth every day and most people accept them in good humour. But if it offended her, as I said, I have no problem suggesting that if she finds it inappropriate I will apologize.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Nault.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that sufficient. If the remark was meant in jest, there would have been a few smiles around the table, but I didn't see anyone smiling on either side of the table. That was the second reference to this; the first was collapse. I don't think it was funny nor do I think it was meant in jest. Such an attack deserves more than an apology that was late in coming.

I would also like to add that this was done on television. There are people who will see this. The parliamentary secretary seemed to be saying that I was not capable of fulfilling my responsibilities and duties. I know that I am capable of doing so and I think that we will have opportunities to see that in the coming days and months. However, this exchange was broadcast on television and I don't think that this lame apology is sufficient.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I hear from other members, I'm going to comment on this.

One of the major assumptions we have to make as members of Parliament is that we're honourable people. If Mr. Nault stated just a few moments ago that the comment was made with a sense of humour or in jest after a long day of hard work when what Mr. Nault described as comic relief was needed, then I would have to accept Mr. Nault's statement at face value.

.1030

If we reach a point in the life of a committee where we begin to question the integrity of individuals, then we run a risk of never believing each other. That's not the way this committee is going to be run. This committee is going to accept, or at least the chair will, that what Mr. Nault just stated is an honest response to Madame Lalonde's comment.

We can debate this all day, if you like, but as chair I'm quite convinced that Mr. Nault feels exactly as he said. Otherwise, every time any of you speaks, I'll have to start questioning each statement you make. I'm not God and I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to be in the position of having to start questioning your motivation, honesty and integrity. I think the people who sit around this table, the officials included, are here because they are people of integrity and that's that.

I'll take some more comments if you want to participate in this debate, but as far as I'm concerned, as I stated earlier, it was an unfortunate statement. All of us around this table have our views on what aging means and have admiration for people who have acquired wisdom over the years, and that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

As chair, though, I will have to recognize people who want to speak. But I do it with regret, I'll tell you that now. Does anybody else want to speak? Go ahead, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): A few months ago, the leader of the Bloc québécois designated me as spokesperson on seniors' issues. I had the opportunity and the privilege to hold a consultation tour on the issue of pensions with stakeholders in Quebec advocacy groups; the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, La Voix, The Choice Group, etc. Everywhere I went, I was told that what's important to seniors, who have come together and undertaken various forms of action in the past that have resulted in positive outcomes, was to be received with respect and to have their opinions taken into consideration for their intrinsic qualities.

I was very impressed by the quality of what I heard, by the thinking that went behind the statements I heard and by how much the people affected by the situations feel that respect is important.

Last weekend, many people talk to me after having seen the broadcast that we're discussing here. They didn't talk to me about the issue of unemployment insurance reform, but rather about the respect due to a person and his or her age.

It could have been some other grounds for discrimination. The same kind of statement could have had something to do with the colour of a person's skin, or her language. The statements could have been made to a young person to tell them that at their age, they don't know what they're talking about. All these kinds of statements are unacceptable.

We musn't forget that we are in a society where a majority of people are over 55, 60 or 65 and that the contribution that these people make to society is a very positive one.

The statements that were made on this occasion simply reinforce an old-fashioned and false perception that the fact of being older makes someone less alert, less capable of analyzing situations, etc.

That's a very depressing thought for everyone.

[English]

The Chairman: I think a point has been made. This is a question of privilege by Madame Lalonde, who feels that because of Mr. Nault's statement she cannot properly carry on the functions as a member of Parliament in this committee. That's what the essence of the motion is.

.1035

I think if you went around this table, Mr. Crête, and asked people about their points of view on the ability of people of a certain age to carry on functions and the contributions they've made to our country, you would find unanimous consent that there's nothing but respect for seniors and people of different races. I think we live in a pluralistic democratic society.

I am not going to stop you from delivering your speech, but I want to get to the resolution of this particular case. If Madame Lalonde is not happy with an apology - which I personally believe, knowing the parliamentary secretary, that he truly means it and that it was done in good faith - unless you're going to give me some options to resolve the matter in other ways, I don't understand why you're preaching to me and the other members of Parliament about respect for seniors.

The faces I see and the people I know - I've forgotten who they are - are members of Parliament who were elected by people aged 18 and up. What's the point? What are you saying?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'm referring to an excerpt of the statements made by the member:

[English]

``When you get to a certain age, you have to get your sleep. I know.''

[Translation]

He wasn't only alluding to Mrs. Lalonde herself, but the entire population. What I'm saying is in reference to Mrs. Lalonde's proposal. My argument is about the content of the proposal and I would like to underscore one aspect: the motion is a request that the committee acknowledge the situation.

The member has offered a personal apology today, a few days after having made this statement, which he did not correct publicly. We had to wait until this was discussed anew today. The proposal reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development report to the House of Commons the statements made on April 18 by the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Human Resources Development to the honourable member for Mercier, as the contemptuous nature of the said statements constitute an infringement on the member's freedom of speech.

We want the committee to take a position on this situation which, to our minds, is unacceptable and requires correction. The statements have not been corrected by the members of the committee last week. We raised the point and today we are asking the committee to adopt a different position.

[English]

The Chairman: You've made your point clear now. You want to vote on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: It's a motion. We should debate it and vote on it.

[English]

The Chairman: We have a motion in front of us, proposed by Madame Lalonde.

The one thing I can't do as chair is turn back the clock, in that sense. Mr. Nault apologized today, he didn't apologize the day before. I can't do anything about that. We're dealing with this motion and that is what the debate is going to be limited to. I just want to set these rules right away.

There is a point where we stop talking about the real issue and enter into a political debate. When questions of a person's integrity are being dealt with, the politics should kind of take a dive, as far as I'm concerned. But if you want to continue to engage in that -

Let's go, Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I support the motion as proposed and I would like us to discuss it.

.1040

I was here Thursday evening, as you know. After Mrs. Lalonde's statement, I listened to Mr. Nault's reply. He said that he'd made those remarks in jest.

I would like to put this jest in context. Thursday, I did note that Mr. Nault was not at all in a good mood. In my opinion he was in a bad mood about things that had been happening during the committee meeting.

This may seem innocuous. It was quite obvious that things were not going as he had planned Thursday night. There had been mathematical errors that I pointed out and were other facts. There was that communiqué on which there was an embargo until 6:00 p.m. At 6:05 p.m., we saw it. The communiqué referred to Mr. Nault's committee. He knew that we knew, and Mr. Nault, a parliamentary secretary, was offended by that fact. That was the context.

I remember full well that when he made that statement, he did not seem like someone who was joking with a dry sense of humour. There are people who can joke without laughing, but we cannot say that was the case in the context of last Thursday evening, where his bad mood could really be felt.

Since the debate was broadcast - Mr. Chairman, I understand you want to expedite things, but I think it's important that the situation be clarified.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: The debate was broadcast on television. One final point.

[English]

The Chairman: No, Mr. Dubé, order.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I don't see how -

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second. It's not a question of accelerating the process at all. It's a question of raising points that are actually relevant to the issue. That's all I'm saying. If you want to get right to the point, are you basically saying that you're not taking Mr. Nault's word? That's seems to be what you're saying - that his apology and what he stated today - that he's a dishonest individual.

Mr. Dubé: No.

The Chairman: You're not saying that? You're not accepting what he's saying.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No, I didn't say that.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, no? Okay, then what are you saying?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Today, he says he was joking. Personally, I felt he was rather furious that evening.

[English]

The Chairman: So you don't believe what he's saying?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: He will have an opportunity to reply.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're saying that he's not being honest.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I never said that.

[English]

The Chairman: No? Then what are you saying?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I said he seemed to be in a bad mood Thursday.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. Mr. Nault has apologized. I heard it, the people in this room heard it, and you heard the same thing. Do you accept the fact that what he said today to us, as an hon. member of Parliament - Do you believe what he's saying, yes or no? That's the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: If Ms. Lalonde's motion is not adopted, the people who heard this on television will never know that the parliamentary secretary apologized today. We're not sitting around the kitchen table here, Mr. Chairman. This was a public debate. The honourable member for Mercier's parliamentary privileges were attacked publicly and things should be rectified publicly.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Do you have anything more to add? Would you like to speak a little bit more?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't want to accelerate you.

Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr. Chairman, this was an unfortunate remark coming from a parliamentary secretary, but I must tell you that over the years I've heard much worse in Parliament and in committees. I've heard awful remarks - and I'm saying this as the oldest member of the committee and one who only sleeps six hours a night. It shouldn't have been said, but the member has apologized. There's a long tradition in the committees and in the House that when a member apologizes, the apology is accepted and it ends there. If we were in the House of Commons, the apology would have been accepted, and that would have been it and we'd go on to other things.

The Chairman: That is tradition.

Mrs. Brown.

.1045

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

As an observer who was not, obviously, in attendance last Thursday night, I have listened with certainly some interest and, I would hope, a little bit of objectivity. I'm in agreement that the statement was regrettable, but is there any way in which we can move this forward because of the very public nature of the commentary? Perhaps we can ensure that this piece of tape is not televised again. It might be one way to somehow redress the issue insofar as the very public nature of the comments is concerned. Perhaps the committee would endorse that as a possible solution. It has been broadcast once, but it would be unfortunate to see it rebroadcast in the context of this debate today. So I would move that, perhaps as a suggestion to resolve this situation - at least in part.

The Chairman: Before I can deal with that, I have to deal with the motion that is in front of us, and this is the motion.

Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The wording of the motion is very important. We're asking that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development report to the House of Commons the statements made on April 18th.

I have nothing against reporting to the House about the statements of April 18th and possibly also today,s apologies. We could record in the minutes that the statements were made and that there were correction today, but the fact remains, and I would like to counter the position of the Reform member who has just spoken, by saying that prohibiting the broadcast of the statements that were made is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of democracy. At the time the motion was table, the Parliamentary secretary had not offered an apology. The member specified in her motion that we want the statements made on April 18th to be referred to the House.

If the liberal majority also wants today's apologies to be broadcast, the Liberal members can move an amendment to that effect. However, you can't just say whatever comes to mind and apologize anytime you feel like it. These are not things that are said lightly. This is not question period. We cannot put questions in that sense. It's a matter of respect for the rights of a member of Parliament and we're asking that that be taken into account. We are proposing such a motion to the committee because these statements were made in committee.

If we want to deal with these statements in the house, we may be told that we should have dealt with them in committee first. We seize the first opportunity to raise the question here, in committee.

The member is proposing that we refer the matter to the House because the statements that were made infringe on her freedom of speech. There was an apology. If you want that to be recorded, well, so be it, and the public will be the judge of the consequences. I think the content of the motion is relevant even if an apology has been forthcoming,

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second, Mr. Easter.

Basically, we're back where we were ten minutes ago. Namely, we have to deal with this motion, right? We're going to take a vote on the motion. Is that correct?

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wrong to pass this motion. The purpose of a parliamentary committee is to report to Parliament on the substance of the issue. Mr. Nault has already apologized. I happened to be sitting beside him that night, and I believe he made the point in jest, in humour. I know the individual and that's how he operates; he felt it was humour after a long day. So I believe very deeply that he meant the apology that he extended to Madame Lalonde.

So I think to incorporate a statement as proposed would be wrong, because we would be moving away from the substance of what this committee is to do, and that is to establish a report based on all the facts and presentations that have come before the committee on very real concerns relative to Bill C-12. I am therefore in opposition.

.1050

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde: I listened to what Mr. Warren Allmand said. I heard everything you said, but I've also read, not in Beauchesne but elsewhere, that the committee cannot hold captive someone who is being subjected to something.

Given the fact that this was broadcast on television and given the fact that it's an infringement on my ability to do my work, I would like the committee to refer what happened to the House. I heard the statements by the parliamentary secretary, but it seems to me that this is not a sufficient response to the harm done. It's important that there be some balance between that attack that I was subjected to and the apology, which is a kind of retraction. There is not equivalency there.

The apology that was offered this morning does not change the fact that this happened and was broadcast. Yes, I accepted the apology, but it does not correct the harm done. That's my argument. Since it does not correct the harm done, I would ask the committee to vote in favour of this motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready for the vote, then?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown.

Mrs. Brown: I hope you're in good humour.

I have a point of order I would like the committee to consider. I received a letter this morning and noted comments from legislative counsel. It came through my fax last night, and I read it this morning. The letter and the comments that came to me indicate the inability of legislative counsel to prepare for me amendments to Bill C-12.

Mr. Chairman, I spent considerable time before the Christmas break with the Clerk of the House and the Deputy Clerk of the House on this matter. I was given assurance that I would have the legislative counsel support I would require in order to prepare for the amendment stage of Bill C-12. That has not been forthcoming.

I therefore move that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development adjourn immediately and not reconvene until I have proper legislative support for the development and presentation of my amendments for Bill C-12.

I would like to table with the clerk a copy of the letter I received from legislative counsel.

.1055

Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue I have been dealing with now since December. Excuses and more excuses have been forthcoming. There has been no resulting action with respect to the development and preparation of those amendments.

I have copies for the committee if they wish to have a look at the letter.

The Chairman: After this is distributed we will talk about legislative counsel for whatever time it takes.

Yes, Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: I have just a very quick point of privilege. I hope in the future we can get a bigger table. As you can see, we have so many books, so many papers, I'm infringing on my good friend Easter here, and I'm infringing on these poor people from the department. I'd ask you to do your best to get us in a room with a big table. That's one thing.

The Chairman: That's noted, Mr. Allmand. I'm happy with mine, though.

Mr. Allmand: Second, I want to thank the research staff. I think they did an excellent job of providing this book, this compilation of the evidence and the testimony. I'd like to show my appreciation.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Before I recognize you, Mr. Crête, was the Reform amendment distributed to everybody?

Before we get into question-and-answer sessions here, the point we have here is that you would like the meeting to be adjourned and be started up, when, Thursday? Do you think you'll have your answers then?

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would hope you, in your wisdom, would take note of comments legislative counsel made to me, that even the amendments that have been drafted may not be legally watertight. I don't know about your alarm bells, but mine certainly were ringing when I read that.

I have asked and asked on this particular issue since last December. The Clerk of the House and the Deputy Clerk of the House babbled on incessantly: oh yes, we have so many time constraints, but we will deal with this, we will have everything before you as you require.

We haven't had any legislative counsel support throughout any of the hearings - or not to my knowledge did we have anybody in attendance. I had asked that for at least part of that deliberation and discussion we would have them here.

Now, until such time as I have the support I require to put forward amendments to this committee, I would suggest that the committee reconvene after such time as I have those amendments.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a recommendation that this particular motion stand down, for two reasons. One, I'm aware that the Reform Party's House leader has corresponded with our House leadership. Letters have been exchanged. In those letters you will see that the request by Mr. Speaker, the Reform House leader, is in essence complaining about what Mrs. Brown is talking about.

The response from Mr. Zed lays out the facts. The facts, as I understand them, are that there are no amendments put forward by the Reform Party. Legal counsel is dead quiet. They have plenty of time. That's not the issue at all. Quite frankly, I think there's something else driving Mrs. Brown's agenda -

Mrs. Brown: Careful, Mr. Nault. Careful with your words.

Mr. Nault: - simply because when you get to take a look at the letters -

We checked this out. Mrs. Brown brought this up at the last meeting. There are no amendments on the books that they're being asked to spend time with.

.1100

The other issue is that this bill has been out since December. The real question is where has Reform been on their amendments since December? You don't put your amendments in at the very last day and ask that they please be put in legalese because you'd like to present them. As you know, we have been working in committee for months now, so I think we should stand down this motion until you get a chance to review the letters by the two House leaders and to review their respective positions. Quite frankly, you'll find the legal department is quite prepared to spend time with the opposition in order to get the job done. But if they don't get the amendments, it's pretty hard to do the job.

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, were you aware of the letters and the exchanges between your House leader and -

Mrs. Brown: I understand there have been some discussions between our House leaders, but that's not the issue, Mr. Nault.

An hon. member: What is the issue?

Mrs. Brown: The issue is my request for legislative counsel support throughout this whole process. It goes back to last December, but it has not been forthcoming. It's evidenced here in this communication with legislative counsel that I received last night. Unfortunately, they have not been able to familiarize themselves with Bill C-12, thus any amendments that may be forthcoming on behalf of the party, as I will submit them to the committee or to the House, may not be legally watertight.

Your comments have absolutely no relevance at all to what this document highlights.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, my point is this. We've dealt with this at the very beginning of the committee hearings. Mrs. Brown has asked continuously to have legal counsel sit at this committee. Quite frankly, we have some here today and we have some people at the front over there who work for us at the Library of Parliament as researchers.

But the issue is that this is not common practice; it's not the way the committees have worked in the past. And because she didn't get her way on that particular motion - Taking the expenses of the House in order to have an individual from the legal branch sitting with us day in and day out was voted down by the committee. We already have lawyers working for us on the committee. But now this motion comes up.

Mrs. Brown: It has nothing to do with getting my way. It has everything to do with my rights as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Nault: No other committee has this right.

Mrs. Brown: Excuse me, but Bill C-68 is a very good example of the legislative counsel support that was given to all parties during the course of that debate last spring. Precedents have been set, Mr. Nault.

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, you've made your point.

Mrs. Brown, I think you're point has been made and it is duly noted.

Does anybody else want to speak? Mr. Crête, and Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I would go further than they have. In order to form an opinion, I would like to have somewhat technical information at the outset. Who is Mr. Kevin Gaudet? What are his responsibilities? What's his position? Is he responsible for legislative counsel services?

We only have an English version of a letter and I'm trying to understand it properly in order to interpret it correctly. According to my translation, the letter says that because of the offices constraints and priorities, it was impossible for him to familiarize himself with Bill C-12.

Has the Legislative Counsel Office decided that it could not give priority to a bill on unemployment insurance reform? This bill has generated a fantastic amount of energy throughout Canada. We travelled across Canada and tabled a bill that contains a multitude of clauses and that affects a huge number people of people. We have to clarify this issue, because if that's true, everybody has to go back and do their homework.

One of the last sentences surprises me a great deal. Perhaps it is due to my poor comprehension of English. The Legislative Counsel Office admits in the letter that he cannot assure Mrs. Brown that the amendments prepared for her are solid from a legal standpoint.

In reading this document, I understand that an opposition party, which does not share my own views at all, has not been able to get amendments drafted by the appropriate support services as one would expect.

.1105

That's a minimal requirement, and this is completely unacceptable. We must have as complete information as possible on this situation in order to assess what really went on.

This letter leads me to believe that what Mrs. Brown is proposing, namely that we wait until she obtains appropriately drafted and solid documents, is perfectly justifiable.

Nobody has put forward any argument saying that this was indefensible. Why say that because a bill has been before Parliament for a long time we should finish this up?

In a democracy, time is not a reversible tool. Just because we take more time to pass a bill does not mean it's not a good piece of legislation. Often, we may end up with an even better bill. This bill does not deal solely with current political issues. It contains important points that affect the lives of people and may lead to some amendments.

For example, I would point out that insurability has not been a major issue in the current debate, but it does involve problems for a very large number of people.

If we make a proposal and were unable to obtain information and sufficient professional support because of the priorities of that office, the government or the committee - I am no procedural expert - we should send a clear message to the Legislative Council to tell them that there has been an infringement of Parliamentary privilege.

We would not be very happy if we were in a similar situation and we fully understand the position of the Reform Party.

I would like someone to clarify who Mr. Gaudet is and the context in which this took place.

Why have we reached this point? Why this letter after several months? This letter isn't dated in January, but April 22, 1996. It's very recent. It's a kind of admission that they were not able to do the work on time.

I'm convinced that if we rush the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the steam will have to escape somewhere.

It would be better to come up with an appropriate bill. If the government anticipates putting it into force by July 1st, we still have time to debate it. We must be assured that our debates are based on correct content, a solid legal basis and appropriate legislative support.

I would like the Liberal majority to tell us whether it has any arguments to counter the content of this letter because at face value, it convinces me of the relevance of the Reform Party's arguments.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I made inquiries the other day because I was interested in knowing how many amendments were coming from the opposition parties. I thought I'd like to look at them. I was told that the legislative counsel's office had not received any request to draft amendments from the Reform Party, so I'm at a bit of a loss.

This memo says Mr. Côté was unable to identify those provisions in the bill that may require amendment. That's not his job. Members of parliament are supposed to identify sections in the law that they think are wrong or not correct and put in their own words the sort of amendment that they want. Then the legislative counsel helps draft those amendments. It's not up to the legislative counsel to identify places for amendment or to draft amendments without getting some instructions from the member.

Mrs. Brown: They have, Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: There's an information gap here. I was told they had not received a request to draft amendments. Did you say you did ask for amendments to be drafted?

Mrs. Brown: And we have them. The unfortunate aspect of this is that they could not be brought before the committee in time for this particular part of our deliberations. Therefore they will be delivered at report stage. But my point is that we have -

Mr. Allmand: When did you submit them?

Mrs. Brown: - had no support from legislative counsel for many months, and scrambling in the last five days is unacceptable to me as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Allmand: But Mrs. Brown, I believe Ms Hurley is a lawyer. I don't know whether the other -

Are you a lawyer?

A voice: No, I'm not.

Mr. Allmand: Ms Hurley -

Mrs. Brown: It's not the job of our researchers to be doing this work for us either, Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: Well, that's what they're here for. I don't know what else they -

Mrs. Brown: They're not here to be drafting amendments. I'm not a legislative drafter and I don't think they are either.

.1110

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, just one second. I'll tell you this now. One thing I'm not going to tolerate is this type of going back and forth. You're going to go through the chair and you're going to be recognized by me. I have no tolerance for this kind of bickering.

Now, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that this is not any reflection on any hon. member sitting around this table, especially on the opposite side. But an hon. member from Calgary mentioned that they couldn't get any answer in the last five days.

Again, Mr. Chair, I'm not talking about this member or any other particular single member of the Reform Party, and I can't talk about the legislative counsel, but if I wanted to make amendments to this and if I wanted to get them ready in time, I would attend the hearings. This is not for any particular individual here. I know the Reform Party is a small party but, Mr. Chair, I think it has to be recognized that they are not present at 70% of the hearings, now or when we did the SSR.

This does make a difference, Mr. Chair. You would need a lot more help if you were never going to be here to get your information and to listen to these people.

An hon. member: I'll say.

Mr. McCormick: I just want to leave that on the table, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, you yourself said during the debate on the motion I raised that we had to recognize the credibility of all members present. Well according to my understanding of the parliamentary secretary's argument, he does not recognize Mrs. Brown's credibility by asking her if she submitted her amendments on time.

Mr. Chairman, at first glance, prima facie as lawyers say, this committee, and in particular the Liberal majority, must ensure that the opposition has all the means possible to do its job on a bill involving one of the most complex laws in Canada.

I don't know how many days Mrs. Brown is requesting, but I think that the committee would be in a very bad position to tell her: "We're sweeping that away too".

Whether you like it or not, you have to work with the opposition, be it official or not. Of course, you are in power, but don't abuse it. Mr. Allmand, the letter states:

[English]

I have been unable to identify those provisions in the bill - je m'excuse -

The Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Lalonde: - that may require amendment in consequence of Mrs. Brown's proposed amendments.

[Translation]

So in the same sentence, it says that amendments have been proposed.

I don't know how Mrs. Brown will formulate her request, but it seems to me the committee has no other choice but to accept it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, just for the benefit of all the members, do you have a motion that you would like to be voted on?

Mrs. Brown: You have it.

The Chairman: Okay. May I read the motion? I'm going to read the motion so that we all understand what we're talking about. It is moved by Mrs. Brown:

that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development adjourn immediately and not reconvene until I have proper legislative support for the development and presentation of my amendments for Bill C-12.

She would like to table that with the clerk.

Okay, now Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Has the motion been tabled officially? Earlier, I didn't hear any argument to tell me that the Reform Party's position was indefensible. I maintain that position. However, I would like the chairman to indicate to me whether it would be possible to present a sub-amendment.

.1115

The Chairman: It's always possible.

Mr. Crête: In her motion, the member is proposing that we adjourn immediately and resume when she has received appropriate legislative support.

It's a bit dangerous when only the member herself can judge whether she has received appropriate legislative support. Perhaps we could consider giving her a set time period in which she could obtain that support and ensure that legislative counsel can tell her that this is a priority for him in the future and that he will provide her with the necessary support.

As an amendment, I would therefore move that we not resume our sittings until such time as the honourable member has received the necessary support from that person and at the latest - and we could agree on some deadline - next Monday for instance, we could come back to the committee if she has not been able to receive adequate support.

I think she's right on the substance of the issue, but we have to let her be the judge of when she has received sufficient legislative support. I would like to propose a sub-amendment to the motion by the Reform member so that we set a deadline, which could be Monday of next week.

I'd be very pleased if the Liberal majority could tell us how this is out of order. We've had no response about why they think the Reform member's perception is false. One can only wonder why Legislative Counsel Office has not made these amendments a priority, when we know this is a very important bill. I think that the motion as proposed is very worthy of support, but with the amendment that I've proposed.

[English]

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I really wonder if you should rule the motion out of order. This is not a motion that we can deal with effectively as a committee.

In dealing with legislative counsel, I've found that when I've put ideas for amendments forward in time, they've always been dealt with. If there's a problem with the legislative counsel of the House of Commons, this is an issue that is more appropriately put before the Speaker of the House of Commons. It's not within our ability as a committee to deal with that.

I suggest that either you should rule it out of order or we should vote on it and get on with the business we're here to do.

It's not our fault if the Reform Party didn't get their amendments or ideas forward in time. I say let's get on with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Shouldn't we dispose of my amendment before discussing the substance of the main motion? I've tabled the amendment and we should debate it and dispose of it and then get back to the main motion. I would like to speak to the amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk will read your amendment and then we'll deal with that, and then we'll go back to -

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: All right.

[English]

The Chairman: - the first amendment. Then eventually we'll vote. Then we'll see if the motion passes or is defeated.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Crête, the amendment would read as follows:

That members can benefit from the necessary support and that to this effect, the committee meet next Tuesday at the latest.

Mr. Crête: She must have the necessary support and this must be settled at the latest next Tuesday. I agree, as long as her needs and those of the Reform Party are taken into account.

.1120

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: I want to speak to the subamendment, but it relates also to the amendment.

When I said I made inquiries as to whether any amendments had been submitted, it was probably - I don't know exactly when Mrs. Brown submitted her amendments, but it could have been beforehand. I see this memo is dated April 22, which was yesterday.

In any case, I have to come back on this point because I dealt with it as chair of the justice committee. The legislative counsel are busy. You cannot go at the last minute with a number of amendments and ask the legislative counsel to get them ready within one or two days. This bill has been around for quite a period of time, and people who are serious about the bill should have presented their proposals for amendment weeks or months ago.

I make the point, which was raised by my colleague, that, Mrs. Brown, you and your party have not been present at these meetings very much. I've counted the times. I keep very close record. I would say three quarters of the meetings had no representative of the Reform Party here. To come at the last minute and complain that your work isn't being dealt with, I think, doesn't show too much diligence or seriousness on the part of the Reform Party.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

Look, it's going to be a long day, but I'll tell you one thing. The one thing I will be doing as chair, not only on this particular issue but on this Bill C-12, which is a bill that I know quite well, is allow people the flexibility to repeat themselves once or twice, but I'm not going to be tolerating the same points being repeated over and over again. I'll make that very clear to you right now, because I really believe the people around this table are intelligent enough to get it after the first, second or third time.

So we're going to be moving to Mr. Dubé, Mr. Crête, and then we're going to go to Mrs. Brown. Let's put all the points on the table.

Let's go, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête: Je passe.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Firstly, last winter I heard Mrs. Brown explain her needs at least twice. She had even explained them to the previous committee.

Secondly, I find her remarks are justified, because last Thursday evening, I heard Mr. Allmand say that he might give his consent to Mr. Nault's amendments on the condition that they had been examined by legal counsel. I heard him say that last Thursday evening.

Thirdly, I don't agree that's enough to debate such a matter in committee. When you're debating rules as specific as that of the privilege of a parliamentarian to receive a service she expects, it is not enough for the government's majority to dispose of it stating that, even if the MP believes her privilege has been breached, it's all over once it's being debated in committee. I find that very serious.

In the House of Commons, when this kind of thing is brought before the Speaker, he makes sure that the rules and procedures are complied with, that it's not just the majority's business. If that is the case, why are we here? You have to follow the rules. Even if an important rule has not been infringed upon, it seems that Mrs. Brown has not been satisfied with this specific aspect of her work. That is why I support her.

It is not a matter of debate and I would like someone to get information on this matter from the clerk, or elsewhere.

.1125

[English]

The Chairman: As you probably know, it's approximately 11:30 a.m., and we've been dealing with two issues today. The point of personal privilege that Madame Lalonde raised was dealt with. Now we're dealing with Mrs. Brown's point, and the only thing I stated earlier was that perhaps we should get the facts on the table. Let's see what the issues are, and then let's come up with the final decision on this issue.

The interest I have as chair is to deal with Mrs. Brown's point. She raises a point that is obviously of concern to her, and if it's of concern to Mrs. Brown, it's an area of concern to everyone.

Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I suggest that we start again at the latest Tuesday morning. That would set a deadline and, in my opinion, the amendment improves the initial motion which meant that theoretically, we could have ended up with nothing.

The amendment I'm moving may go against some of my interests, but I think it is a better proposal which sets a deadline, next Tuesday.

We mustn't presume that the MP is acting in bad faith; she will do things properly. However, it is important that there be a clear message for the legislative counsels who will make sure this is a priority.

Even with my amendment, it is not clear that the Legislative Counsel Office should be assigned to this as a priority. We may end up next Tuesday without having received the necessary service. That should be taken into consideration.

Obviously, we don't have information on the number of amendments that the Reform Party MPs wanted to introduce, but no matter the number, Tuesday's deadline should give them enough time to decide on them.

The motion will also state clearly to the Legislative Counsels Office that in the future, its priority must be these things. I also understand that the Reform Party MP must have the opportunity to meet with legal counsel to explain the context in which she makes her representations and she must be able to feel that she's getting quality professional service so that she can gather all the necessary information.

The amendment itself sets the limit to ensure that we are not delayed three weeks or a month. Without the amendment, the liberal majority could have more reasons to vote against it because there wouldn't be a limit. With my amendment, I think that the motion becomes acceptable for the liberal majority, which wants to pass the Act so that it comes into force on July 1st. With this amendment, we're not stopping the government from continuing in any way. It's not a case of systematic opposition which would keep them from reaching their goal.

I would ask the Liberal MPs to support my amendment and then we'll debate the main motion. If the Liberals vote against the amendment and against the main motion, their position will be inconsistent. They won't have wanted the motion to be limited in time. Then they'll vote against it because they don't want it. They will then have to answer for this inconsistency, and it won't be acceptable.

It would be interesting to have all the information before going back to the main motion, because I have some requests for information on the main motion that are unrelated to the debate on the amendment at the time when I made it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown.

.1130

Mrs. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have expressed your interest and concern for the committee as a whole, I have several points to make in response to my honourable colleagues across the table.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, members of the Reform Party were here to represent the party when I was absent. For anyone to even suggest that I was not doing my job is ludicrous and insulting. I can read, after all.

Further to that, Mr. Chairman, I am very serious about this bill. I am dead serious about this bill. For anybody to suggest that I am not is insulting not only my integrity, but my intelligence.

The third thing I'd like to say concerns Mr. Allmand's suggestion that my amendments had not been prepared or that amendments had not been forwarded to legislative counsel. Mr. Chairman, can you please tell me what business it is of Mr. Allmand's to go and question the amendments of the Reform Party? Does that not breach confidentiality?

Mr. Easter: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Brown: I am sorry. You've -

The Chairman: Order, order! Just one second.

Mr. Easter: I have a point of order.

Mrs. Brown: So do I.

The Chairman: As chair, I'm going to tell you something. I am not at all pleased with the way this meeting is going. We have to have a little better decorum here. I think you have to recognize the chair if you want to speak. If you want to carry on conversations, do that outside. Don't waste my time and everybody else's time with them.

On a point of order, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Easter: My point of order, Mr. Chair, is that you ruled earlier that we should be dealing with the amendment. I believe we're supposed to be dealing with the amendment. These comments are not on the amendment. They should be ruled out of order so that we can get on with business.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: The Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which also apply in committee, provide that we can't comment on the absence of a member. Three times at least this morning Mr. McCormick, who is always nice, has commented on Mrs. Brown's absences and I find it unacceptable.

[English]

Mr. McCormick: No, not on individual members.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. McCormick, please.

Mr. Dubé, that was your point. Does anybody else want to comment? Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mrs. Brown's reaction to the remarks she has heard is a sort of question of privilege. She said that they question her integrity and her ability to carry out her job as official critic.

I did some reading on the question of privilege. In a debate, you can rise on such a question at any time. She is right to act this way. If she feels that the remarks damage her integrity and a breach of her parliamentary privilege, it is the opportunity to rise on a question of privilege, and nobody can call her to order because this privilege overrules everything else. She has the right to do so; she should do so. I would then like to speak to the amendment. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown.

Mrs. Brown: All I was attempting to do was to file a response to the challenges that came from my honourable colleague within the government respecting my attendance at this committee, my ability to undertake my role as a critic, questioning the party's attendance at the hearings of the committee over the last several months, and lastly hearing from one of our committee members that he actually went to legislative counsel to see the nature of the amendments by the Reform Party. To me that breaches the confidentiality not only of the Reform Party, but of me as a member of this committee to undertake my job.

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, I think that point has been made. Now you have a question of privilege.

Mr. Allmand.

.1135

Mr. Allmand: I want to clarify. I made inquiries to see if there would be amendments from the opposition parties, which it is natural to find. I didn't go myself; I made inquiries.

If there had been amendments I would have approached you, because I might have supported some of your amendments if I had got them in good time, and I was also interested in the Bloc. If you had amendments that improved the bill, I was going to maybe support them. I didn't ask for the content of the amendments. I simply wanted to know if there were a number of amendments submitted at that time. That was the only reason. I would have gone to you afterward; if they said Mrs. Brown has several amendments, I would have asked what they were. I might have supported some.

The Chairman: Okay, I think everybody's made their points. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: You're going to speak on the amendment now? Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Are we on the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

As I now read good authors, I know that the first sentences you read concerning the principles of Canadian parliamentary rights have to do with protecting the minority and tempering the lack of foresight or the oppression of the majority.

It's a good case, and this committee, with its strong Liberal majority, should accept Mrs. Brown's remarks, because otherwise, it would be presuming that she doesn't have any amendments and that she wants to prolong business.

It was previously stated that we had to accept Mr. Nault's apology. You found Mr. Nault's apology sufficient, but even if I accept it, I do not find it sufficient. Mrs. Brown says that she has amendments and that she wants them to be adequate. I am sure that I would not agree on them. But in a democracy, it's not enough to just support people that you agree with: you also have to make sure that things that could be established democratically are. I think that the MPs on the other side must make it a point of honour to allow the Reformers to move amendments that at least meet the rules. That is the reason why I'm going to support the amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: We're going to move to the vote now.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I call for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk: We're voting on Mr. Crête's amendment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It is an amendment on the motion:

That members can benefit from the necessary support and that to this effect, the committee meet next Tuesday at the latest.

[English]

Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5

The Chairman: The amendment is defeated. Do we want to move to the next vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: This is now the main motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I think that the Liberal majority has missed a marvellous opportunity, and its attitude concerning the amendment allows me to presume a lot concerning the attitude it will have during the rest of the debate on this bill. Now that you've defeated the amendment that was moved and that set a time frame, when you could have moved ahead by accepting this amendment, you'll have to decide once and for all whether you want the opposition parties to be able to do their job the same as anyone else.

If you persevere in this attitude and you don't want to give opposition parties their chance, you can be sure that you'll run into even more opposition in the street and elsewhere.

.1140

Parliament is made of two groups: the majority group and the opposition group. The opposition has the right to identical services as far as support that may be provided to it in order to allow it to do its work properly; if the Liberal majority votes against the motion that it refused to amend, it runs the risk of being accused of preventing the opposition from doing its work properly.

A legislative counsel tabled a document that proved clearly that the Reform Party did not receive appropriate services. And I need clarification.

I have the text written by a person giving an opinion, and nobody in the Liberal Majority, except Mr. Regan, has challenged in any way the letter tabled. I think you should vote in favour of the amendment, despite the weakness that the Liberals have left in the motion, which might however result that in having the committee sort of suspended until the Reform Party decides otherwise. But that is the result of the vote we carried out previously.

If you have the urge to amend the motion, you still have the possibility to make it acceptable. It will be up to you to ask the question when you're given the floor, to ensure that the amendment is acceptable.

You'll never be able to hide behind the fact that this allows the Reform Party to take all its time, because we suggested a limit.

I therefore do not accept the argument that the motion gives the Reform Party control. You've done this yourselves by voting against the amendment.

I appeal to you to come up with a compromise that would respect what Mrs. Lalonde was saying earlier, that the rights of the Opposition are protected while the government keeps its right to legislate without being obstructed or controlled by the minority. You still have time to do it.

Concerning the substance of the matter, if you don't allow the Reform Party to obtain this information, it will be possible to say throughout the country that the Liberal Party has adopted an attitude of contempt, and it won't be hard to associate that with remarks that have been made for quite a while. We can bring them up.

The Parliamentary Secretary stated that "this bill has existed for a long time and the Opposition persists in wanting to adjust things and come up with the best bill; just let us govern as if there was only one party in the country".

This attitude will be reflected in the vote on this motion and the message will be quite clear. If you vote for it, that will mean that, to the 5000 people from Rivière-du-Loup who last Saturday showed their opposition to the bill and for the people and the MPs from the Maritimes who went to see you in your ridings and shake you up, you refused that one of the Opposition Parties suggest improvements to the reform and that you were acting as if you were in a country with a single party. I find that unacceptable.

The Liberal Party will have to live with the consequences for a long time. I guarantee you that I am going to broadcast this, no problem.

Mrs. Lalonde: We can't ask the question.

Mr. Crête: I rise on a point of Order. We have to settle the matter once and for all. It is stated that we can't ask the question like this in committee, be it a full committee or other. So we should settle it once and for all without having to repeat it all the time.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I? It's very short.

.1145

Calling for the question is simply suggesting to the chair that he should ask if people are ready to hear the question on the vote. It's not a motion saying we have to end debate.

The Chairman: Okay. Just one second. Could everybody just kind of cool the temperature a bit?

There was a call for a question. Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Allmand: I want to respond to the remarks of -

The Chairman: Okay. You're not ready for the question, so we'll go to Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if the members of the Reform Party have been diligent in pursuing amendments and couldn't get cooperation from the legislative counsel, I would support this motion.

It's my strong opinion - and I say this with all respect to Mrs. Brown - that they have not been diligent in pursuing their amendments. She said that while she was away members of her party attended the committee. It was rare that they were here.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Allmand. On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman -

Mr. Allmand: I have the floor.

Mrs. Brown: I'm sorry, I can't accept those -

Mr. Allmand: If you want to verify the proceedings that list the members who attended each day, it can be done.

An hon. member: It's very easy to do.

Mrs. Brown: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, are we here to check on my attendance every day?

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor. I have never interrupted Mrs. Brown.

The Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Brown, what's your question of privilege?

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Allmand, you are challenging, through the chair, my integrity on this committee.

Mr. Allmand: Your diligence in pursuing amendments.

The Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Brown: My diligence.

Mr. Allmand: Yes, I am. It's not your integrity but your diligence in pursuing amendments.

I want to pursue this. I would say I would support her -

Mrs. Brown: Well, I don't -

Mr. Allmand: I'd like to complete my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I don't interrupt the other members.

If it had been shown that members - not just Mrs. Brown of the Reform Party - had been diligent in pursuing amendments and couldn't get cooperation, I'd support the resolution. I see no evidence that they've been diligent in this, unfortunately.

Secondly, I've been in opposition for a long time myself and I've drafted many amendments to bills. When I came in late at the last minute and couldn't get the legislative counsel to assist me - because there are 21 committees - I drafted the amendments myself with the cooperation of the research bureau of my party or other assistants. I submitted those amendments. Some were accepted and some were defeated.

The fact that you absolutely need the legislative counsel to submit an amendment to committee is wrong. You may need that if you want, but my point is that people who are diligent had lots of opportunity over the last two months to prepare amendments. I see no evidence that the Reform Party was diligent in that. It seems its members went in the last few days - I can't say, maybe Mrs. Brown could tell us - to get amendments done and at that point the legislative counsel couldn't help. She still has the right to get the amendments in if she wants. She can table them as we go through the bill in the next few days. She can prepare them or have them prepared by the assistants in her party and we'll deal with them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

Mrs. Brown you were first. Madame Lalonde, you'll be next.

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I'm not going to dignify those comments by making any further statements here. Mr. Allmand is challenging my word, and I find that regrettable on his part. That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Go ahead, Jan.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. Excuse me. I want some order. If this continues I'll adjourn the meeting. So you can all cool it.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I know that Mr. Allmand has been a parliamentarian for many years, that he is aware of tradition and interpretation, but I know one thing: on the side of power, you have all the officials on your side. The unemployment insurance bill is one of the most complex bills in Canada. It's very hard to work on it.

.1150

It is objectionable to make a value judgment that states that, because Mrs. Brown didn't do this or that, she cannot receive what she is entitled to. Why wouldn't she be entitled to the support that would allow her to play an essential role in the Opposition? That is what is in question here.

I won't come back to the first point, but we seem to forget not only the Official Opposition's rights, but also the need for a real opposition.

We could reread to you the speeches you've made on Bill C-113. It's very enlightening. I don't accept that you aren't able to admit the need for the Reformers to introduce all their amendments here with the assurance that they won't be deemed inadmissible.

It's fundamental. Find an amendment, or Mrs. Brown could make one, but make sure the principle of the right of the opposition be recognized and confirmed by this committee.

When you're in power, it's easy to forget what it's like to be in the opposition. It's all the more easier when the opposition before you is made up partly of sovereignists who don't want to take power in Canada and partly of Reformers.

To my mind this is something that will undoubtedly be used later in Quebec. It is extremely important, the right to oppose. The role of the opposition is what makes the difference between single party countries and the others.

Don't tell me that a day and a half or two days really matter in the consideration of this bill.

We are completely dependent on what those in power do. We have often waited. The Opposition has been pushed aside, in the consideration of this bill, by interventions from officials who kept trickling down in January, with a document so thick that we hadn't had the time to read it before.

I felt I was being pushed aside. But there comes a time, in the British parliamentary system, where the opposition has the right so speak. At least that's how I've understood it and that's what I intend to defend. Even if there's a strong likelihood I will disagree with Mrs. Brown's amendments, she has the right to move them and they may be in order. They may be defeated, but they'll at least be admissible.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Dubé: I have a new amendment to move, given the discussion. The amendment to give the MP until Monday was defeated just now. I suggest that we give her until Thursday. I think the time factor is very important.

Mr. McCormick suggested Saturday, but I wouldn't want that after saying that, he defeat the amendment? I therefore move Thursday.

I have another thing to say about time. We started considering this bill in December with a special measure so save time: we dropped the second reading. Then we put it off until after the holidays. We came back in January and, all of a sudden, the government changed its position. It made its Throne speech and decided to prorogate the session. We waited for a month and came back. Because the government now wants to move ahead quickly again, we have to move quickly.

I remember exactly what Mrs. Lalonde said Thursday night, that we never have time to read documents because there's always time pressure.

.1155

If the government wants to show that it is ready to collaborate with the Opposition, even though it didn't want us to go and meet groups where they live or for televised videoconferences to be held in a collective hall, it should at least be open to the amendment I am moving, which is to say until Thursday of this week. Monday having been refused, we come back at 9 o'clock Thursday morning.

[English]

Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Chairman, I would like to be involved in this debate simply because of what I've heard this morning. Certainly, I'm not familiar with what has been going on prior to this, because I'm simply sitting in for a member who is ill today.

It seems to me that there are a lot of accusations flying back and forth on the proposed motion and no one seems, in spite of the statement that there was a need to get to the facts of the matter to judge this properly - There have been a lot of questions about the diligence of the member and all the rest of it, but nobody has yet said or questioned how long the amendments have been put forward and whether there's been a reasonable time for those amendments to be dealt with and all the rest of it. Mr. Allmand himself said he would support this motion if he could determine if there was due diligence demonstrated, and yet nobody, to my knowledge, has made an attempt to determine if due diligence has been demonstrated and that the amendments have been put forward long enough to have been determined so.

So I think there is no attempt, as Mr. Nault has accused, of filibustering this committee. There is simply a request for a postponement until the amendments can be dealt with properly, and I suggest this committee get to the bottom of the facts rather than this bantering back and forth.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Proud): Thank you, Mr. Chatters. Mr. Crête is next.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: It's on the amendment moved by the MP for Lévis.

This is a new opportunity given to the Liberal majority to adjust and come up with an acceptable compromise.

The amendment suggests Thursday morning of this week, 9 o'clock. We are now Tuesday, noon. So we are asking for a day and a half. That is not unduly long. We tried a first time to set a longer deadline, up until next week, and it was refused. We said it would be to the advantage of the Liberal majority to accept a compromise which, in my opinion, is quite reasonable.

This is not excessive; a day and a half. It's a short period of time given to the Reform Party because it must meet the legislative counsel who hasn't had enough time to help them, because his office decided that it wasn't a priority. He'll be told that it must be a priority for 36 hours, and the Reform MPs will also have to put in time.

We know that during that period, a caucus meeting has been called for each of the parties. That's another three or three and a half hours that the MP must devote to his normal activities and not to the preparation of these things. It's almost a substantive amendment.

It's truly a substantive question that is being asked to the Liberals: do you, yes or no, want the opposition to have the right to carry out its business in the present government?

We're not saying this is done generally, but this time, there has not been adequate service. We are asking for an exceptional measure to allow this adequate service to exist for a short period of time, until 9 o'clock Thursday morning.

.1200

This amendment will make the main motion viable. That is what is important in the amendment. The Liberal Party can always decide whether it should vote against the main motion, but it should seriously consider voting in favour of the proposed amendment.

The amendment does not force you to vote in favour of the main motion afterwards, but it allows you to improve it so that it is easier to live with and that the final vote will be held on the best possible motion. That is what the liberal majority must decide on.

With the amendment, the motion no longer has any significant impact on the time frame. It's not a matter of putting it off for a week, but rather for 36 hours. It seems to me that should be acceptable to the liberal majority.

This will allow the committee to put an end to this matter and to carry on its business in order to make the new Unemployment Insurance Act the best act possible.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that this point shouldn't require a lot of debate. We've already debated the matter of time before this committee on a previous motion, so I would suggest that we limit the debate on this one and call the question.

The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the vote?

Some hon. members: Yes.

[Translation]

A voice: A recorded vote.

[English]

Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I have one last comment before we proceed to the vote, if I may, through you.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Brown: I would like to read this.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe, as a parliamentarian, that I need to prove to this committee my due diligence in terms of my role as a parliamentarian. Obviously all of us, as we work in committee, develop our strategies and we develop that strategy or set of strategies on the basis of a perspective that you carry for your party or by attention that you may want to draw to a particular set of amendments, to a particular focus, or a particular methodology that you would like to utilize when you are addressing such a bill as the one we are reviewing.

So in the spirit of collegiality, I will tell the committee that I have requested six specific groups of amendments. Legislative counsel has prepared only three. I would inform Mr. Allmand that there are three others that came in a note that was an addendum to this piece this morning. He indicated to me that he was not able to deal with the other three because of time constraints and the pressure he was under within his office. Given the requests that I have made, Mr. Chairman, over time, I have been diligent in respect of the efforts that I have undertaken on behalf of this committee.

If there is any question of my due diligence, after having relayed to you some of our strategy in approaching Bill C-12, I hope that has now been laid to rest.

Finally, in closing, with due respect to the legislative counsel who had written to me, he demonstrated that he had doubts about the quality of the amendments that have been prepared for me. Of course, this is indicated in the last sentence here when we are looking at the term ``legally watertight'', which indicates that indeed those amendments that have been drafted may not meet this requirement.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope you understand some of my frustration this morning at the concern about my diligence and my attendance at the committee. That does not in any way preclude that I did not read the transcripts of the committee and did not, indeed, have consultation with my legislative assistant in terms of what was developing. Also, for those members of the party who did attend in my absence, who were representing as part of this committee, I think it would be most unfortunate and unfair to them to dismiss their work as well and to dismiss that out of hand.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Brown, for stating your case. Now everything is on the table and we can move forward to the vote.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Dubé's motion is the following:

That the member can benefit from the necessary support and that to this effect, the committee meet Thursday, April 25, at the latest.

[English]

The Chairman: Are members ready for the vote?

Some hon. members: Yes.

.1205

Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Are we ready to vote on the main motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I find that the members of the government are showing an incredible, flagrant and absolutely objectionable lack of responsibility.

We have moved two amendments to allow for a time limit. The first might have seem too long to you; the second suggested 9 o'clock Thursday morning, in 36 hours. You defeated both amendments.

This brings us back to the main motion: that there be an immediate adjournment and that we not start again as long as the MP has not had the necessary legislative support to draft and present her amendments to Bill C-12.

By being obstinate, the liberal majority is painting itself into a corner, defining itself as the only party able to decide alone, that it doesn't need opposition parties. If the opposition isn't here, it should be elsewhere.

These are all the things that the Liberals are questioning by taking this closed attitude which has nothing whatsoever to do with the way this committee has worked from the beginning. There has been a lot of collaboration despite very different ideas on different topics and we've taken a lot of time consulting people. When it comes time to decide, the consultations are proven to be just show, because the government doesn't want in any way to listen to what the MPs on the other side have to say.

So here is the motion. If what I've said isn't true, show it. Up until now, nobody has challenged the letter tabled by the member. Nobody has contradicted its content. So, until proof of the contrary, the facts were accepted.

You are just trying to steam roll this bill through. If it's a matter of principle with regard to that motion, I can guarantee you'll have a great fight for the rest.

People did not elect us to be yes men. We must make sure that in the end, there is an unemployment insurance reform bill that is the best possible.

The motion before us fits in directly with this idea, and the opposition must be allowed to play its role.

It's not my fault if the liberal majority decided twice that it didn't want to set a time limit. We're back to the main motion, and I will make a final offer.

If a time limit is acceptable to you, you can still put it on the table if you want to respect the principle of the opposition's rights in this matter. Otherwise, we'll have understood that as far as you are concerned, the opposition means nothing.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: I wasn't going to intervene again, but I feel as if I have to respond to those remarks. I'll do so briefly.

Let's point out to the committee that it was decided, I think several months ago, that we were going to go into clause-by-clause consideration more or less at this time. It was agreed by all members of the committee that we would start clause-by-clause consideration either this week or last week. I think that was back in February. So there was lots of notice that we would be dealing with clause-by-clause consideration. Amendments would have to be prepared for this period of time.

.1210

Both Mrs. Lalonde and others, such as Mr. Crête, have said it is a question of denying the rights of the opposition. It's not a question of doing that. Anybody can submit amendments when you call the clause. They don't have to have the approval of the legislative counsel. It isn't absolutely necessary.

In answer to Madame Lalonde, I have even prepared amendments on the government side - as have other members - to government bills without the bureaucrats. I've done it myself with the help of other people, but not necessarily with the legislative counsel or the bureaucrats. If we're really serious, or if a party is really serious about making amendments - and I know the Bloc Québécois is because they've often prepared amendments to our bills - they're made ready and they're given in.

In this case, I wasn't questioning the diligence of Mrs. Brown, I was questioning the diligence of her party. The bill has been around since last December. If a party is really serious about a bill, they analyse it quickly, find out what's wrong with it, and start preparing amendments.

So it's on that basis that I cannot understand why today, at the last minute, we're asked to delay the bill still further when it has been known for months that we were going to proceed to clause-by-clause more or less at this date. There was ample time to prepare amendments, yet even now the opposition still has the right to prepare their amendments and to submit their amendments.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, if an amendment wasn't ready for a particular clause, I'm sure you would stand down the clause and delay it until later in the hearing in order that they could put their amendment later, at that time. In other words, if there was an amendment to clause 5 but it wasn't ready, we could stand it down until the end of clause-by-clause so that the amendment could be prepared.

So the opposition has full rights. The question, though, is whether or not you can go to the legislative counsel at the last minute and say that you have amendments and want them within a few days, particularly when you've known the clause-by-clause was coming for months. Legislative counsel has to deal with many committees and their amendments. I have some sympathy in dealing with the legislative counsel, but in this case we knew. We had lots of time, and I think we will still have the amendments if the opposition wants to go ahead.

The Chairman: Okay, I think more or less the debate is exhausted in the sense that -

Mr. Chatters: There is another point.

The Chairman: Is there another point you want to make? I will stop people if they continue to repeat themselves.

Mr. Chatters: That's certainly fair. Fundamentally, however, I think this needs to be said because there are accusations being made - and a number of them I've heard from the other side - that my colleague brought these issues to administrative counsel at the last minute.

It is my understanding that she submitted the request for assistance last December. If that is indeed the case, I think you're being fundamentally unfair. If she did in fact ask for this assistance in December and has yet to receive it, I don't think it's reasonable or fair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Lalonde: I don't understand that the party in power isn't giving us a sign, because that's what we're asking of it. I'm not asking this for the Bloc, but I'm putting myself in my colleague's place. In her place, I would be mad, because there is more to it than just moving an amendment. You have minimal rights, it seems to me when you're faced with a government that all the officials are working for. That's the least the government in power can do to ensure that the amendment is admissible, that it won't be eliminated, that its form will be the right one.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Allmand who, in power, makes amendments and does not ask for the support of legislative counsels, but we're not in that situation. We're in the opposition and we have the right and the responsibility to do what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to your sense of responsibility. We have a clear right and I am acting as if I were the person in that situation.

Mrs. Brown has the right to services which allow her to make admissible amendments. Do you know that the difference between an admissible amendment and an inadmissible amendment is often quite slim.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you ready for a vote?

.1215

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to move.

I would just like to move that the motion stops after ``adjourn immediately" in order to give the government the time to carry out relevant consultations to settle the matter of the availability of legal counsel. That would get rid of all elements concerning the appropriate legislative support for the development and proposal of amendments. The committee can meet at the Chairman's call and not have to recognize the weakest aspect, which is that there is no limit for the Reform Party.

I would quite simply ask that we put a period after "adjourn immediately" and that we strike the rest of the motion. I move this amendment to give us another chance to get out of this without challenging the opposition's right to adequate services for the preparation of its business.

[English]

The Chairman: Since I detect that this debate is going to take its course, as it should, I'm going to inform the members from the Department of Human Resources Development that I doubt very much if we'll be hearing from you before the break, before we come back at 3:30 p.m. So feel free to leave the room and do whatever you have to do. I extend that just as a courtesy.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I've finished with my amendment. I move that the words following the word "immediately" be deleted from the motion.

[English]

Mr. Easter: I'll ask for your guidance on this, Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting here debating why these amendments haven't come forward before. Why hasn't the research money that the Government of Canada pays to the opposition parties been put to better use so these amendments could have been brought forward in due time?

The Chairman: That's a good question.

Mr. Easter: Maybe it's a waste of the taxpayers' money.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: A recorded vote.

[English]

The Clerk: The amendment is to the effect that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development should adjourn immediately. I will proceed to the roll call vote.

Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5

The Chairman: Now we'll go to the main motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: You can't say that we haven't done what we could to make it viable and acceptable to everyone. By defeating the last amendment, you have shown us very clearly the government's intent. I will give you the floor for the main motion.

The Liberals haven't made any adjustment proposal and that is the last thing I have to say. I leave you to think. You have the time to see whether you are ready to do something to comply with the principle that the opposition should have adequate services.

.1220

We have a document proving that a legislative counsel was unable to devote the required time to this because his department did not indicate that it was a priority.

The vote gives me an idea of the attitude the government will adopt in relation to actual changes to the bill and the work done by the committee.

Isn't the government conveying a clear message to us that it considers the committee's work of no importance and that the only thing that counts is to rush through the bill with the three small amendments that the Minister has put on the table? I think that an attitude like this on the part of the Liberal members of the committee shows that they're not doing their work as parliamentarians.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?

Mrs. Brown: I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. Allmand: What are we voting on?

The Clerk: We're voting on Mrs. Brown's main motion.

An hon. member: What's the main motion? It's been so long since we talked about it.

Mr. Allmand: I thought we just voted on that, didn't we?

The Chairman: Oh, no. We haven't voted on it yet.

Mr. Allmand: I've just spoken to the legislative counsel and I want to report what he said.

The Clerk: I will repeat Mrs. Brown's motion.

Mrs. Brown: Could we hear the comments from Mr. Allmand before we take our vote? I find it most curious that he's made a phone call to legislative counsel in the midst of this debate and now he's going to bring further information. I find this very curious. I think it would be a very interesting part of our debate if indeed he could be prepared -

Mr. Allmand: It will be.

Mrs. Brown: Yes, I'm sure it is, Mr. Allmand. You are a lawyer, after all.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: He was the first to speak on the vote.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't know how long this is going to go on, but I'll tell you right now I'm not going to tolerate it. We're in the middle of a vote.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: He was the one who spoke, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: That's fine, but the chit-chat is going around all over the place. We have serious legislation to look at and we're chit-chatting. Let's go.

Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I have a proposal to make. I'd like the committee to ask the legal service to provide all necessary support to the member of the Reform Party for the preparation of her amendments. I am not mentioning any time frame in this proposal but simply asking that this request be put to the appropriate authorities of the Legislative Counsel Office. It is not a question of assigning blame to the individual legal counsel but sending out a clear message from the committee that priority must be given to meeting the requirements of the member for the Reform Party in this matter.

Mr. Dubé: Mrs. Brown called for this at least twice in the past two months and it is perfectly reasonable to expect priority treatment. The counsel's bosses tell her that it is not a priority when unemployment insurance affected three million people last year. It is important and they must be made to understand.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, have you put that in the form of a formal motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

We're going to be voting on a motion, if you can pay attention for a second.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Crête moves that the Legislative Counsel Office be requested to give priority to the provision of any support required by members of the opposition in the study of Bill C-12.

.1225

Is that acceptable to you?

[English]

The Chairman: Are you ready for the vote?

Mr. Allmand: I apologize. I didn't hear. Could you please read the motion?

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Crête moves that the committee requests the Legislative Counsel Office to give priority to the provision of any support required by members of the opposition relating to the study of Bill C-12.

[English]

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: I need some guidance vis-à-vis the time we're going to spend here before Question Period. It's now 12:30 p.m. The officials have stayed; thank you for staying. Until what time do you want to go?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Until 1 p.m.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: I don't object to the committee proceeding, but I have another meeting in 15 minutes dealing with section 745 of the Criminal Code, a thing I'm very much interested in. As well, I said I would go to such a meeting, so I have to leave in a few minutes. I don't object to the committee's continuing to sit if you wish.

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we had set the timeframe to go until 1 p.m. today. I suspect we should honour that and then start again at 3:30 p.m.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Nault: I want to signal to the opposition, though, that we have a lot of amendments as a government, and we would like to have time during the next three days to present those amendments. I want to signal as well that it will be our intention to pass a motion making sure we get to those somewhere down the line.

Maybe you could have a discussion with the opposition as to what the time lines are here. If we spend a whole day debating procedural motions and not getting into the bill, we will have to start sitting some pretty late hours if we're going to get through the clause-by-clause process. This is a very large bill, a very complex bill, and I'm sure the officials will be requested by members to explain the amendments being put forward. It's obviously our intention to request that some consideration be given to the bill itself. Otherwise we won't get to look at every single clause in detail as we might want to do if in fact there is a timeframe.

Am I correct in my understanding that this bill is to be reported and clause-by-clause completed by Thursday night?

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Nault: Well, we've already spent half a day doing absolutely nothing except deal with procedural things. It would be interesting to find out the views of the members of the committee related to extending the hours of sitting if we have to do that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête: I hope I've misunderstood what was said by the secretary. Did he say that he had decided ahead of time that the bill would be referred to the House on Thursday? How can he presume to adopt such an attitude? Did I misunderstand him? I'd like him to repeat his remarks so that we know exactly what he said.

.1230

[English]

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, is that not the time schedule we set at the very beginning in February, that when we got to clause-by-clause we would set aside three days? That was the agreement we voted on in the motion in February.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Never!

[English]

Mr. Nault: If you look at the motion, Mr. Chairman, you'll find that this is the case. I'm asking if it's the intent of the opposition to request an extension to those three days, which were supposed to be Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, ending Thursday night with the completion of clause-by-clause. That's in the motion we passed when we started this process a number of months ago.

The Chairman: Just one second.

Yes, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I repeat again and againt that we never voted on a time-limit for clause-by-clause study, never. We did vote on the hearing of witnesses but never on clause-by-clause study. The bill has 190 clauses.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: There are problems in the bill, it is a complex one and it is something that I intend to repeat. As one of the researchers said, the change to an hourly based system

[English]

is a leap in the dark.

[Translation]

This is the first time a country has ever adopted such a system and we could give you further examples. We will certainly not rush through this bill. On the contrary, we are counting on the understanding of the members opposite because we know that they have more weight with the Minister than we do.

Never did we agree to a time-limit for clause-by-clause study.

Mr. Crête: Could you read to us the motion that was adopted by the committee in March when we were setting our timetable so that we have something concrete to go by? That will answer the secretary's question.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk will read -

[Translation]

The Clerk: This is an excerpt of the minutes of proceedings of the meeting of March 12, 1996.

On the motion of Jean Augustine, it was agreed that the timetable for the hearing of witnesses until March 28 be adopted, with no meeting to take place on March 25.

Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you.

Mr. Crête: I gather from the resolution that nothing more than this was adopted. The comments of the secretary are incorrect. I'm not saying that he is lying but they are incorrect. Perhaps he didn't have the same information but we never adopted any motion to the effect that we would finish on Thursday.

So I return to his original comments. Does he maintain his position that he was ordered to bring it back to the House for Thursday, that the government wants us to rush through the amendments so that the bill can be in the House for Thursday?

Is that what he told us and does he still maintain his position? If so, we would have proof that the so-called useless battle over amendments that we've been accused of engaging in is far from being a futile battle. I can understand the secretary's position; he does have a mandate and that is why he is forcing the majority to vote against principles relating to the opposition's right to adequate services.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I think the answer was given by the clerk as to whether or not the members of the committee agreed upon that timetable. Obviously there is no record indicating that.

However, I want to make it very clear that I think you would find unanimous consent around the table that we have longer hours. I remember the conversations we had that the members of the Bloc, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party would sit until 9 p.m., 10 p.m., 11 p.m., midnight - whatever it took - and also perhaps begin the day a little earlier.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: No longer than midnight?

[English]

The Chairman: It all depends. That's in your hands. If you want to go until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., that's fine.

.1235

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: We are ready.

Mr. Crête: Once again the opposition members are ready to work long hours to do a good job but I gather that the entire committee is willing then to take the time necessary to give this bill a proper examination. We can take as many hours as are required and the government does not intend to prevent us from doing our job.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I don't think anybody's going to stop anybody else from doing their job properly.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault: If the opposition wants to know the intent of my request as to what people expect here, it's to find out, quite frankly, how long the opposition would like us to debate clause-by-clause. The reason for that, obviously, is that so far this morning we have not got to the important business of the bill itself. We have a significant number of people here from the department, being paid by the Government of Canada, who have not had the opportunity to talk to us about the bill.

It is the intention of the government to have this bill come out of this particular committee by Friday night. We have to get on with the job, and if it means extended hours, then so be it. It's our intention, as the government side, to put forward a motion to suggest that, because if today is any indication of what we're going to do, we could be here for weeks talking about amendment after amendment, with the opposition talking about it. If that's the intent, you and I know, having been in opposition in the past, that's not acceptable, and we of course tried it ourselves.

We will be presenting a motion sometime in the next day or so that will deal with the particular time lines, and it will be voted on in this committee so we know how long we expect to be here dealing with clause-by-clause. I want to confirm that it's no interest of the government side to not allow the opposition to do their job, but if they don't want to get to the bill itself, then quite frankly, are we doing our job?

We are very busy people. We have a lot of things to do in our constituency work. If we're going to sit here all morning, as we've done, without doing one bit of work as it relates to the committee work, then there has to be a motion presented that will give us some time lines so we can at least prepare ourselves, as individuals, to be available and put aside some of the work we have to do other than this committee work.

The Chairman: So are we, as members of the committee, to understand it is your intention to move a motion that will allow debate until Friday evening?

Mr. Nault: Yes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: What?

Mr. Crête: Did he move a motion?

The Chairman: No.

Mrs. Lalonde: He said tomorrow or something like that.

[English]

Mr. Nault: I'm giving you notice. That's the motion we will be presenting as the government side.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: I suggest the government not proceed in that fashion. I heard a general comment from the parliamentary secretary and I myself would like to make one.

Since the beginning of this process we have been rushed. We represent people who are worried, people who will be the victims of cuts. This bill will affect millions of people. Some clauses have consequences that are very difficult to predict and the information we've received has not always been particularly enlightening.

So we intend to do our job as a responsible Official Opposition. Only last Saturday we saw 5,000 worried people in the lower St. Lawrence area. They are all over the country and there are all those who are not demonstrating because they don't have the necessary information but they also will be affected.

.1240

The government thinks that we can get through a clause-by-clause study - Even the members of the party in power, who often have an influence that the opposition does not have, think that they will be able to get through this - It's a completely new bill with 190 clauses, it is a mathematical model but nothing more than a model.

Mr. Dubé: And it also has mistakes.

Ms. Lalonde: The other evening, we saw two mistakes right off the bat. So I suggest the government not proceed in that fashion. It would not be doing its job nor would my honourable colleagues.

[English]

Mr. Nault: Getting back to the business of the committee, I'd like to table for the committee an analysis of the details of the adjustment proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development. What it relates to, of course, is the proactive claimant and assistance service that would ensure that people will receive the type of information and help they need to get back to work and increase the penalties for individuals or employers who intentionally defraud the program; that is, individuals or employers who intentionally collect benefits or assist individuals to collect benefits by providing false information or other such activities.

The intent of presenting this now is that since we're recessing for two or three hours, when we get into clause-by-clause consideration we will be making amendments as they relate to this issue. This is a background document for all the members. Of course, when we will make the amendments to the bill itself, the officials will be available to go into the detail of the specific clauses that they affect.

I want to present that to the committee officially now so that members on all sides will have an opportunity to review it before this afternoon, or whenever we shall get to it. I suspect we'll probably get to this section nearer to Wednesday night or Thursday night, depending on how things will go in the committee. So I present that to you now.

The Chairman: It's being distributed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Is it in French?

The Chairman: It's also available in French.

Mrs. Lalonde: I just love your French.

Mr. Crête: May I suggest that we adjourn the committee proceedings immediately so that we have some time for ourselves? We were supposed to stop at 1:00 p.m. and we've already made engagements. Then there is question period. Otherwise it will soon be 3:30 and we won't know what's happened.

Mr. Dubé: In the document that was tabled on Thursday evening, you noted a number of small mistakes. Is this a new one?

[English]

Mr. Nault: I understand that it has been presented to the clerk. If the clerk has not presented it to you, then that's his problem. We sent it to him when those charts were corrected.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: It's a document on fraud.

[English]

The Chairman: It's being distributed now.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Do you intend to distribute it?

Mrs. Lalonde: The table that we were given is only in English.

Mr. Dubé: We're not talking about the same thing.

Mr. Crête: The document on impact.

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but we received it.

Mr. Crête: I think that Mr. Dubé was talking about the document that was tabled last Thursday evening. It contained tables where we noted two mistakes. We're not talking about the same document. Mr. Dubé's question was about the document distributed on Thursday evening.

[English]

Mr. Nault: We're not talking about who put out the documents, Mr. Chairman. We did resubmit that document, in French and in English, to the clerk. So you have it. If they didn't distribute it to you, I can't deal with that, unless I start doing it out of my office.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Another office.

[English]

Mr. Nault: But it's up to the clerk to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I'm not saying that he didn't distribute it.

Mrs. Lalonde: I'd like to ask another question. We received a table relating to the assessment of fraud and it was in English only. Could we have the French version along with explanations? There are some statements that strike me as being exaggerated -

Mr. Dubé: Yes, particularly concerning the definitions.

Mrs. Lalonde: - not to say blown out of proportion.

Mr. Crête: For my information, I gather that when we resume, we'll be hearing a presentation by officials with questions and answers.

[English]

The Chairman: We're going to start clause-by-clause consideration.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.

Mr. Crête: Immediately.

Mrs. Lalonde; We can ask questions about those ones.

[English]

Mr. Nault: As I've said to the opposition - unfortunately the other opposition isn't here - the intention of the government, which I'm signalling because we're trying to get some understanding of what we're going to be doing, is to present an amendment that deals with the time lines of how long we're going to be in clause-by-clause consideration, which will be four days.

.1245

Now, the question I'm asking the opposition is, how long do they want the four days to go? Do they want it to go until 5 p.m. and that's it? Do they want it to go until midnight every day until we're done, which is four long days but, quite frankly, I think is very much supported by a number of us if the opposition wants to have time to go into detail on every single clause ad nauseam, if you like?

So I'd like to know what they think, because, quite frankly, if we stay with the guidelines we now have of stopping at 5 p.m. or 7 p.m. or whatever, they may argue at the end of the day on Friday night that it hasn't been enough time.

So I'd like them to tell us when they get back at 3:30 p.m. what their position is on that, because the intent of the government side is to present the motion shutting off debate on this particular issue by Friday night.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should not take for granted that our work will finish by Friday. We said that we were willing to work as long as necessary, no matter how old we are. I repeat that in view of the responsibility we have, we think it is not only our right but also our responsibility to take the required time.

The more we work on this bill, the more we realize it is essential to have answers and to make our point of view known and the view of those we represent.

Our work here is part of our job as members of Parliament. Having read and re-read the comments made by the Liberals when they were in opposition, I think that what they said at the time was part of their job and they should remember.

[English]

The Chairman: I think both points have been made quite clear.

On the one hand, we have Mr. Nault, speaking on behalf of the Liberal side, stating that it is his intention and that of his colleagues to move a motion in committee that will allow debate up to Friday evening. That could be midnight Friday evening. On the other hand, I understand the opposition's concern about the latitude given to debate the issues.

The question I have of the committee's members is the following: if we're going to finish this by Friday at midnight, in planning our work schedule I wonder whether we should start at 9 a.m. and finish at 8 p.m., start at 9 a.m. and finish at midnight, or start at 9 a.m. and finish at 5 a.m. the following morning. These are just to organize ourselves so that you know.

So understanding the complexity of the bill, I'm going to say that tonight's meeting will not end prior to midnight, as a starter. I'm trying to accommodate everybody here so that we can - Okay? Is that fair?

Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, just so the opposition is clear, if we don't get an agreement on the time lines, it will be in the motion itself and it will be debated and passed in this committee. It's the intention on the government side to put those time lines in so there is no argument.

I'm asking them what they want to do. Do they want to go 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., or 9 a.m. to midnight, or right around the clock? Fine, whatever they want to do, now is the time to tell us, because we're going to put it in the motion, and that's the time lines we're going to follow between now and the end of this process on Friday.

[Translation]

Mr. Lalonde: There's no sense in expecting that such an important bill one that is so complex and with such a serious impact on the lives of millions of people go through clause by clause study in four days and even 24 hours.

Mr. Dubé: We are also open -

[English]

The Chairman: It's pretty clear to me that you're not in agreement, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Maybe by 3:30 p.m. you'll have consulted each other and come up with something you feel comfortable with.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page