The workers and firms are entitled to the most successful, the most equitable and the best plan that can be developed at this time. And the government cannot achieve this by listening to no one or listening only to some people.
I was struck when Bob White said that, to him, presenting a brief was not really a consultation. You don't act that way when you have a bill and you are asked to make some corrections in it. You are already at a stage when this is more difficult. However, it is not impossible.
If, instead of reducing the maximum insurable wage, the government decided at a minimum to maintain it or, better yet, increase it, then, you could have, in Canada and Quebec, a real unemployment insurance plan adapted to current needs.
There is a proposal for reform on the table that bears a name it does not actually deserve, and that is not adapted to the new regime of temporary, part-time jobs of limited duration, without security. The unemployment insurance plan, instead of adapting to the new requirements of the labour market and looking to the job-creating firms, will produce some extremely destructuring effects on the economy and society.
The Official Opposition, which takes its role seriously, cannot submit all the substantive arguments, because there remain many technical details, to the parliamentary colleagues of the party in power, who may discuss this issue in caucus.
The Liberal party is the party that carried out the most extensive reform of unemployment insurance in 1971 with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Virtually everyone now agrees that this reform was extremely generous. There is a difference between that system and the course followed by the bill that is before us. The latter tends to take us back to a previous period, when the system protected only a small number of workers.
.0805
I can only implore the members opposite, who at least have the capacity to try to convince their minister that he is making a serious mistake.
You may, at this point, be thinking that you do not have a real opposition in front of you. You are telling yourselves that, in any event, the Bloc Québécois does not want to take power. From another perspective, the Reform members think they will make short work of it, although the result of the recent elections should perhaps give them cause for prudence. It is a situation in which the party in power should be careful.
The first sentence I read when I set out to consult Beauchesne was the following:
- 1. The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: To protect a minority and restrain the
improvidence or tyranny of a majority;
We have to remind you of your duties, because it is not true that there is no opposition; we are here and we are going to use every democratic means at our disposal to convince you of your serious error if you do not at least listen to the questions, if you do not follow the direction that is proposed, that is, to construct a system that is equitable for everyone. Canada has the means to provide itself with such a system. You are going to make a mistake and it won't be long before you notice it.
We don't care so much for the Liberal party. We do care in particular for the people who need a real unemployment insurance plan. We are convinced that many of you, in your own ranks, care too, and that is why we feel obliged to submit to you very respectfully that the present bill is not good sense. It is a bill that rewards those who are not in need, that deprives those who are in need, that stands in the way of intelligently reducing the overall premiums without making the worst off pay.
Who has needs? Young people, women returning to work, women who need maternity leaves, older workers who have lost a stable job and are now repeat users of unemployment insurance. This is not because they want this, since they would much rather find another stable and well-paying job, but the only thing they can find is short-term jobs; unemployment insurance at least allows them not to become discouraged.
.0810
I would like to work hard to ensure it is different, but you know that as long as someone is on unemployment insurance it is as if he had his nose above water. It is hard, but he still has hope of finding something. When he is forced to go on social assistance, it is always more difficult. People know this. It is more difficulty psychologically because it is a kind of bereavement. One feels devalued.
Poverty results in a feeling of failure that prevents one from doing what he might to get out of it. The feeling of failure will not be dispelled by kicking people. It is absolutely necessary, in the framework of an equitable and bearable program, to open up this system to those who need it or who have failed to find stable employment.
It would be an absolutely appalling contradiction if, on the one hand, we observed that the employment market is being thoroughly transformed and no longer creates stable and well-paying jobs, and, on the other hand, we reformed unemployment insurance so it is adapted only to those people who are in such jobs.
What we are experiencing is complete and total inconsistency. On the one hand, there is an employment system that is being transformed, and on the other a proposed reform that fails to assist the people who are experiencing that transformation. We can say that very clearly. To say the contrary would be to lie. One need only examine the documents of the Department itself to see how - I would dearly love to say the contrary, but unfortunately -
I am speaking for those who are listening.
I hope that, beyond all hope, there are some who understand and are able to try to move those who can be moved.
Our attitude is not an extreme one, far from it. A fair system is possible. The most intelligent system is not the one before us; it is the one the government has the means to develop if it doesn't let itself go and listen to whoever tells it that it must reduce the unemployment insurance benefits.
Some researchers have studied the effect of the duration of unemployment on workers who use the unemployment insurance system; they have found that someone who draws unemployment insurance is without work for one month longer than someone who doesn't; the difference is that the unemployment insurance claimants tend to find better-paying work. Why not?
Something fascinates me in our debate on that issue and in the remarks by Mr. Young, the Minister, who said that someone who can work one hour should work one hour.
.0815
Work is not slavery without the shackles.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): On a point of order, Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: There is no point of order. I am making my speech.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): On a point of order, Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: There is a lack of respect toward the person who is making one of the most interesting speeches before this committee. A member is giving interviews; he should go and give them elsewhere. We are listening to a very important debate.
Those who want to hold press conferences at 7:00 a.m. might go and hold them elsewhere, so as not to disrupt the important work of this parliamentary committee. Ms Lalonde may be obliged to repeat everything because of the remarks -
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Mr. Dubé.
Mr. Dubé: I acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of the Liberal whip and his sense of observation. He was distracted for a few minutes. I arrived early this morning. I saw that my friend Bonin, probably in the hope of bothering us, changed the atmosphere and that, in that instance, the whip didn't even hang up his cellular phone. He is in a poor position to be giving us a lecture.
I would like members to listen silently and attentively to Ms Lalonde.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé. On a point of order, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We shouldn't forget that last week we were on television at the Centre Block. We had all the means of Parliament at our disposal. Now that we are conducting clause by clause consideration of the bill, not only do you want to limit the time, but you send us to the building that is least equipped. There is no telephone other than this one for making long-distance calls, and this is the only way we can reach our fellow citizens and do our work.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): That's a point well taken. Thank you.Mrs. Lalonde will continue with her -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing with my arguments.
Ms Lalonde: Thanks to all of you for your great collaboration.
Throughout this debate, we are forgetting the nature of work. Work is not slavery without chains. There must be a minimum of satisfaction in work.
Mr. Crête: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could the whip shut off his cellular phone so we can hear what Ms Lalonde is saying?
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mrs. Lalonde, please.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: For someone who is young, looking for work is not only looking for a wage. It is looking for an occupation that will enable him or her to live and give him or her some satisfaction. We shouldn't think that work is simply a means of spending one's time and getting some compensation.
No one here would agree to do that or to do it for long. It is important, for someone who loses a job, to take the time to find a good job instead of being obliged to take just any job the following week. This is normal and necessary, because in a person's participation in society, in his capacity to raise a family, to be a good citizen, there is somewhere the need for a certain balance, a certain satisfaction.
If this minimum does not exist, there are consequences that are expressed otherwise, and that have social costs and, ultimately, economic costs.
.0820
The unemployment insurance system is the best economic stabilizer, better than taxes or any other social program. It is necessary to ensure that it is funded as adequately as possible. It should be combined with a policy of full employment.
The issue of employment benefits is one that has been addressed primarily through the transfer request by the government of Quebec. As it happens, Ms Harel issued a news release yesterday. She complains that the federal government has postponed indefinitely a bargaining session that was to be held last April 17 to arrange a way to obviate the overlapping in labour force programs. Ms Harel states:
- Far from withdrawing from the labour force field, as the consensus in Quebec would require,
the federal government is subtly retaking control of it.
- That is what she said during the debate on supply, yesterday. She identified, among other
things, the cuts that Quebec had to make because of the federal cutbacks.
A voice: Not 46 percent!
Ms Lalonde: - because of the tightening of the federal rules in this area. I look forward to seeing the study. I saw the news release yesterday.
This means then, that integration among the active employment policies is indispensable. We want this to be done in Quebec; other provinces may want it to be done in some other way.
In this great reform of social programs, in the first questionnaire prepared by the research branch of the Library, one of the important questions dealt with integration and the level of government that would achieve this integration.
When we read, moreover, all the proceedings of the OECD, we can draw two major conclusions: it is absolutely indispensable that there be an integration of social policies and that these policies be individualized.
Now, this integration, which is absolutely indispensable in Quebec, can only be done by Quebec. There is an absolute consensus on this, and that is why any delay in these negotiations is a costly delay for the men and women of Quebec who need these active measures, not as a substitute for employment but as a means of managing to get a job in the best possible conditions.
.0825
It is worth pointing out that these employment benefits may not assist everyone. Temporary workers, in almost half the cases, have a certificate, a junior college diploma or even a university degree, while only a quarter of them have not completed their high school education.
Those who have not completed their high school education need training. However, those who already have a degree do not need development programs.
There was an interesting article yesterday in the Globe and Mail, which I was able to read last night. It said that one of the extremely important problems is that after taking programs to improve their employability, people often find themselves without a job after three, four or five years in these programs.
It is not as simple as that. Not everyone can become a member of parliament, like our young colleague who thought he was very lucky to be one after being a bush pilot with a miserable wage and lots of black flies. He found that Ottawa wasn't so bad after all. But he feared that with a salary like his in that precinct, he would forget the condition of the people in his region.
The danger for us is that this system is not made for the people with needs, who are not living in 1950, when a stable job and a good boss were more common. This is 1996. When you are young and you don't have access to anything but precarious jobs or term or part-time contracts, it is not always satisfactory.
So let us take more than five minutes per clause of our time to discuss these issues. This is absolutely indispensable. It is not because self-employed workers may be provided with training or good assistance programs. -
I asked for that in the 1980s and I was happy when it was created, but this is not the only thing that will ensure that the unemployed find definite employment. We are confronting a much more serious problem, and all the resources should be made available to people.
That is why it makes no sense to limit debate to five minutes per clause on this proposed fundamental reform of the unemployment insurance scheme. It makes no sense, because the members have not discussed it among themselves.
.0830
The Liberals may have discussed it among themselves and we may have discussed it among ourselves, but the members of this committee have not discussed it among themselves. We are a committee which, according to my conception, is constituted in order to advise the House. There is no sense in our not being able to work together. We are not just at the stage of principles, we are at the stage of a genuine bill, a bill that will have an immediate effect on people. Some of the provisions of the bill are already being implemented, although it is a measure that will be retroactive. I am referring here to the gifts that the government made to the big companies and workers who have high wages.
I would like to draw your attention to the brief from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, although I do not share all the points of view that are expressed in it. The Minister should have gathered together all of the interested parties - employees, big businesses, small businesses, management and perhaps even ourselves - and tried to establish with them a program more adapted to their needs. As they say, there is something absolutely inconsistent in the bill: the reform should not prevent job creation. However, in their view, the unemployment insurance premiums are much too high and prevent job creation. They were asked how much the premiums should be lowered to have some effect on employment.
It is not always easy to bring the labour unions, grass-roots groups and companies together, but this is one way to exchange ideas, get to know each other a little, and properly advise the government. If not, the government has to choose between the two, which is never a good thing because it does not achieve the point of agreement at which each of the parties would have ultimately arrived, thinking it had registered some progress.
When we asked the independent businesses by how much the unemployment insurance premium should be lowered, they answered that they were preparing a questionnaire and that they would inform us of the answers once they had received them. The Federation will no doubt also share this information with the government. I am eager to get some news of this investigation. We also asked several economists whether the unemployment insurance premium rate could really have some effect; they said that the charges could have some effect on the total payroll. Indeed, it can have some effect. Personally, I am inclined to think -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Madame Lalonde, I am assuming the chair at this point in time, and I have a motion before me that we limit it to five minutes. I would ask that you speak to that specific motion so that we can call the question on the motion and move on. I have been here since 8:15 a.m., and it seems to me -
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: I was saying, Madam, that given -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Excuse me, but could we settle the motion and get it resolved in some way rather than just continue to speak around the topic?
.0835
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: I have spoken constantly about the proposed reform. This proposed reform, Madam, is complex and important. It is a fundamental and major change. As the people who came before us said, you cannot dispose of each of the 190 clauses in five minutes, as the motion proposes.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): My understanding was not that we would do the 190 clauses in five minutes but that each clause would be given five minutes of discussion.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: There are 190 in this bill, which you would dispose of in five minutes, There is no sense to that. Yes, that amounts to 15 hours and 18 minutes -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Yes. The motion is that the committee would limit the study of each clause to a five-minute debate.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: That is why I am speaking against it. This is a bill that is so important for so many people, for the economy. We have not discussed it together and we have had some different opinions from businesses and various groups. This bill affects in particular certain regions, young people, women, workers in their forties, immigrants, and is therefore very important.
We shouldn't rush the opposition and dispose of the bill in a very quick way without answering the questions and, above all, seeing the consequences of enacting the bill if it is not amended.
That is why five minutes makes no sense. From the beginning, in January, when the unemployment insurance bill was tabled, we found ourselves in committee with the senior officials who gave us some studies that we did not have time to read in advance. They always came to us just at the outset of the sitting and we did not have the time to read, understand and develop a critique at the same time. The parliamentary exercise is not an individual exercise. It is an exchange, and we have not had an opportunity to do so since the bill was tabled.
At the first opportunity when we can discuss together the bill as a whole, its effects, its meaning and the dangers it presents, it is necessary to ensure that the government is as well informed as possible and, on our side, we have to bring our colleagues up to date on the information that we have. Our responsibility is to convince the colleagues in the party in power that they must question this or that provision, particularly the most important one, which is to give a gift to big businesses and senior employees. That is why it has to take more than five minutes.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Madame Lalonde, I think it's important for us to give the process an opportunity. If we had done five minutes and that was not sufficient to answer the questions you have or for the clarifications to be made, I think we can work as a reasonable committee and negotiate an extra few seconds until some clarification is made or the discussion is complete. But if we spend the time deciding whether we will spend five minutes per clause, then it seems to me that we're not moving forward.
.0840
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Madam Chair, point of order.
I think it was clearly established at some point that in committee we were subject to the Standing Orders of the House except in regard to the duration and number of contributions. The government's chief whip knows this too, having been in the opposition and having himself experienced similar situations on many occasions. He can confirm this for you.
As long as Ms Lalonde is explaining why it is necessary to spend more than five minutes, she is within the subject matter.
We have been waiting for a year and a half. We have waited a long time. There was even a prorogation. It is a question of time. It is not one night, compared to the time that has been dragged out for a year and a half, that is going to make the difference in this reform.
Madam Chair, I refer you to the clerk, who confirmed to us yesterday the correctness of this provision in the Standing Orders. As long as one is speaking -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Are you into the debate now? You've gone past the point of order. I was trying to establish the motion we have on the floor. We want to deal with the motion, and then we can get into other debates.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We are now in that debate. We are speaking to it. We are saying why it is necessary to devote more than five minutes to each clause. This has been established since last night. I know that you arrived only this morning, but if you call on the good advice of our clerk, you will immediately understand that what we are saying is admissible.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Our comments are admissible, and I am continuing, Madam Chair, to say why it is important to take more than five minutes.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Just for clarification, what the member from Lévis is saying is that they're in a filibuster. They don't have to stop talking until they wear themselves out. They have no intentions of negotiating and they have no interest in getting the clauses put. That's become very obvious to us as we've sat here for the last 24 hours now.
We haven't even gotten past clause 2, which is the beginning of the bill. They've already had the bill for 140 days but they still have difficulty with the definitions and have not taken the opportunity to meet with the officials. I just thought you might want to know that what we're doing here is just a straight filibuster, and I guess we'll continue on until they come to their senses.
An hon. member: We're going to be here for a long time.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you.
Madame Lalonde, you may proceed.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Thank you.
Mr. Dubé: He is alone in thinking that. He may be committing his eighth error in three days.
Ms Lalonde: Madam Chair, we interpret differently the work of the committee. We have had the bill for x days.
When the House prorogued in January, we came and did our homework. The government decided to prorogue. The committee was prorogued. The bill no longer existed, and we did not know whether the government would be bringing it back. When it did bring it back, we were rushed by an extremely tight schedule. The government refused to go into the regions where the people wanted to hear us. This is the first time we have been able to speak together in clause-by-clause consideration and to have the officials together.
From what I understand of the parliamentary process, it is not up to each member, individually, to go find the officials, nor is it the task of each individual member to try to get some clarification for himself or herself. We have clarification jointly. Otherwise, there is no committee work. What is the use of hearing from people whom we have gone to the trouble to track down?
.0845
It is because some arguments are being developed somewhere that would indicate that there could be a much better project than the one that is before us, that can be financed and that is realizable. Why not take advantage of the Committee to bring this out? I would say it is our primary responsibility to do just that, to say that there is a genuine possible project. This is not a dream and it would not be too expensive. We just have to increase the maximum insurable wage, not to $100,000 as Suzanne Tremblay was saying earlier, or even to twice the maximum insurable wage, which would be understandable, but only to $46,000. As a result, the government would go and get another 900 million dollars, which would make it 1.8 billion dollars.
At present, small businesses are paying unemployment insurance premiums on their total payroll. Big businesses are paying on only a small portion. Who is creating jobs in Canada? We are not saying that the big companies are not necessary, but who is creating the jobs? The small and medium sized businesses.
This does not make much sense economically. It seems to me that this is not extremist language. It seems to me that it is a language that the Liberals could understand. Must we proceed as we are doing in order to tell you what we are telling you?
I hope that even if it takes more than five minutes you will remain available to hear this, because it is extremely important. We did not spend the night here for the fun of it. If we had not felt that you wanted to stifle the debate, we would not have proceeded in that way. For a bill as important as this, we have, as members of parliament, the responsibility to take the necessary time.
The senior officials tell us that they have been working on amendments to this 190-clause bill for a year. There are substantive amendments and others that are technical but which are also important to the implementation of the Act because they will make the difference between someone's ability or inability to defend himself at the employment centre.
This will make the difference between an affidavit that might be taken by an officer, which would have precedence over the statement, and an affidavit made to an officer without being sworn. This changes one's whole defence. There are some technical questions, and it is our responsibility to ask them.
We have been criticized several times for not having met with the senior officials on an individual basis. I have some difficulty in understanding this. Here, during clause-by-clause consideration of another bill, I was able to ask all my questions and take all the time that was needed.
The bill was not as long and was less contentious, but I had exactly the same attitude and, on several occasions, the people on the other side took into account the questions I was asking to change a word or check something.
This is our responsibility. To gag us through a five-minute proposal is to prevent us from playing our role as members of parliament, and that is how we have taken it. It is not only to prevent us from playing our role as members of parliament, but also to prevent us from playing our role as Official Opposition.
.0850
Furthermore, we feel it is our responsibility to represent all those people who have demonstrated with, in most cases, a profound feeling of despair and discouragement.
We know we cannot perform miracles, but we must at least do what is possible. That is why we think that allowing only five minutes for consideration of each clause is not a way to respect the process, neither the Official Opposition nor even the people who went to the trouble to protest and demonstrate, and still less the population in general.
We are here to represent those people, to say what their problems are, to question the officials, and to see the effects of this or that measure. Five minutes per clause is not serious. Think about the time that has been spent on other issues by the committees and in all the committees that travel across Canada. We are told that the Human Resources Development committee costs too much! We should remain in Ottawa, when there are a whole series of committees that travel for a host of different reasons! I understand that in videoconferencing, people sound off less than they do in public.
A voice: They don't turn over the tables.
A voice: It cost a lot. We spent a lot of money.
Ms Lalonde: I suppose we should have asked, before, how much it cost. Does Canada no longer have the resources to support its parliamentary activity? Democracy is expensive, but I think the contrary would be even more costly.
Mr. Dubé: Point of order, Madam Chair. I understand the irritation of certain colleagues on the opposite side, but they are constantly interrupting Ms Lalonde and taking the liberty of making comments. The chief whip, who should be providing an example in this Parliament, both to his colleagues and to the representatives of the other parties, has nothing better to do than make calls from his cellular telephone, which is not even unplugged.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé, that's not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I'm sorry, it is a point of privilege.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): It's not a point of privilege, either.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Point of order, Madam Chair.
May I explain? Although I am usually a nice guy, I am beginning to get a little irritated by the continual comments of people who do not have the floor but who, from their member's seats, continually disturb the speaker and disturb me too by preventing me from listening to what is being said by Ms Lalonde, who has a long experience in this field. That is why I am appealing to you, Madam Chair, and I appeal as well to the chief whip to call to order his members, who are being somewhat disruptive. They are tired, of course. Some might be interested in going for a rest.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Maybe the rhetorical questions should not be answered on the other side.
Madame Lalonde, maybe you should not make the rhetorical question that forces the.... Please respect....
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: Madam Chair, I ask you to recognize that my language is extremely moderate and that my comments are addressed solely to this reform of unemployment insurance on which we have been working, you and I, for a long time already.
This is the first time, however, that in this committee we have an opportunity to consider together the repercussions, and I would like to try to convince you that your way of proceeding is senseless.
I would like to remind you of the conclusions of one of the researchers who worked for you,Mr. Van Audenrode of Laval University.
.0855
He began by saying that the unemployment insurance system was not functioning so badly, when all is said and done. And he added this:
- Contrary to a solidly established popular belief, unemployment insurance does not lead to a
decline in intensity in job searches. The image of the unemployed person drinking beer, sitting
on his sofa watching television until his benefits have run out, is simply false. We were able to
isolate many characteristics of the unemployed that significantly influence the intensity of their
job search: age, sex, indebtedness, but at no time could we significantly relate the status of an
unemployed person on unemployment insurance to the intensity of his job search.
- This result differs from those found in some other studies, and is explained by the fact that we
were able to take the individual characteristics into account in our research, which had not been
done previously.
- He also says:
- Some workers, unfortunately, accumulate unfavourable characteristics, and the type of
employment they can find often brings them back to unemployment insurance. This is related to
the characteristics of these people, and not to the parameters of the program.
There are some prejudices about the unemployment insurance program. It is necessary to analyze these studies done by the government or, rather, that the government has had done. Their results don't always coincide. These results must be balanced against each other to see how we could then establish a real plan. This is possible because we have the means to do so.
Mr. Van Audenrode said that providing unemployment insurance to an unemployed person enables him to find a job with a better salary. The principal effect of unemployment insurance on the individual is this, therefore. And that is an important characteristic, Madam Chair, and it is conceivable that the bill has failed to reflect these observations.
It must be said that an unemployed person who is covered by unemployment insurance can find a better job with a better salary, particularly when the unemployment insurance benefit is relatively high. That is what unemployment insurance is for, then.
Since it is insurance and people pay for this insurance, isn't this a desirable result? He says that the price to pay for this result is a slightly longer duration of unemployment:
- According to our estimates, an unemployed person who draws unemployment insurance
benefits would be unemployed for about four weeks longer than an unemployed person who
does not qualify for benefits.
.0900
The ideas that we have expressed, in particular that of increasing the maximum insurable wage in order to reduce everyone's premium, to ensure that it is not the poorest, the youngest and women who pay a gift to the big companies, are perhaps worth pondering. How are you going to justify in your ridings the fact that you made some gifts to the big firms and workers earning $39,000 to $42,000, while making the others pay - they who will perhaps never be entitled to unemployment insurance from the beginning? That is not justified and it is not necessary. We don't really need it.
So, Madam Chair, I hope I have inspired, be it ever so slightly, a desire among my colleagues to ask some questions of themselves and to try to convince the Minister that the path he has followed is not the right one. Since it is a reform that appears to be made to last a long time, it is certainly worth the trouble to take one's time to study it, and I repeat that the Minister of Finance is not in a hurry, since this year, without the reform, there will already be one billion dollars more in the unemployment insurance fund.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you.
[English]
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
I am very happy to be able to participate in these debates.
I really liked Ms Lalonde's speech. I listened to it closely. I almost want to ask her to repeat it, because we would really like to be sure we clearly understood everything she said.
I think, without wanting to offend Ms Lalonde, who made an excellent speech, that the speeches of last night were very important. During a speech last night, a member of the Bloc Québécois admitted he was filibustering, and this is even indicated in the official proceedings of this committee.
When members admit they are filibustering, the chair is entitled to report the bill to the House.
For example, you will recall the case in 1984, when Mr. Lachance was chair of a committee. You will also recall the case in 1990, when the Finance Committee reported a bill: in the midst of the deliberations, the chair rose and reported the bill to the House precisely because a filibuster had been acknowledged and we were therefore witnessing the tyranny of the minority. This happens.
And although J.S. Mill said that the converse existed, it remains nonetheless, and we saw it this morning, that my colleague, Mr. Bonin and I, were also the victims of this tyranny of the minority. Mr. Bonin and I are tired of this tyranny
If I recall what happened in 1990, the chair at the time had indeed decided that it was quite normal to report a bill to the House of Commons when the debate in committee was going on for ever.
For my part, my comment will be brief. I am simply going to propose an amendment to the motion made by my colleague last night.
.0905
[English]
I move to amend the motion by adding, after the word ``debate'', the following:
- That no later than 10 p.m.
- - have a nice weekend, everybody -
- on Monday, April 29, the chair of the committee shall put forthwith all remaining questions on
all clauses without further debate, and all remaining clauses and amendments pending before
the committee, and any and all questions necessary to conclude the study of Bill C-12.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Do you have a seconder for your motion?
Mr. Proud: Seconded.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Could we hear the motion in French? He read it a bit too quickly.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): In French?
Mr. Boudria: No, I have read it. I had no obligation -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay, the translator, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: And you were complaining earlier you weren't being listened to.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Boudria moved to amend the motion by adding after the word ``debate'' the following:
- That no later than 10 p.m. on Monday, April 29, the chair of the committee shall put forthwith
all remaining questions on all clauses without further debate, and all remaining clauses and
amendments pending before the committee, and any and all questions necessary to conclude the
study of Bill C-12.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: I would like to make a point of order.
I would like to ask the legislative counsel if this amendment is admissible, because it changes the meaning of the first one. I want to know whether it is admissible, that is all.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Yes, the amendment will be accepted.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Point of order!
Ms Lalonde: Are we going to continue the debate on it?
Mr. Dubé: The whip said two things: first, that a member had conceded he was filibustering. I was there most of the time and there were some people - I said it myself - who appeared not to understand very well what was happening because the debate was taking a somewhat different form, but -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé, are you speaking to the amendment? Are you speaking to the amendment, to the proposed...?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: No; we will await the text.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Could we deal with the amendment and then -
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: It's a gag, too.
Mr. Dubé: I had asked to speak earlier in order to speak to the amendment.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): So you're speaking to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Yes.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Yes. Well, that's fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: This is a motion that is put to debate, and we are therefore going to discuss it. It is consistent with the spirit of the other one. The idea is to cut short, to gag the work in committee. I think the bill in question is too important to limit the time for its consideration. There is nothing in what I have heard that would justify the application of that amendment, and I would like to intervene by saying that there are both too many and too few people who have spoken in the committee to put forward their ideas.
On another point, Madam Chair, although I respect my colleague opposite, I would request that you ask him not to disrupt me when I am speaking, as he does all the time.
You are going to ask me why I am asking that it not be applied, but what we have before us is much too important.
The first report I see was written by the research branch of the Library - it is not the Official Opposition - and faithfully reports what was said in the hearing. And what is the first general comment? It is that the best thing to do with Bill C-12 is to shelve it indefinitely.
.0910
The unemployment insurance reform program is supported for workers in the fisheries or other industries. However, the first comment that stands out, and 80 percent of the people stated -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Excuse me, Mr. Dubé. There is a point of order.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: That comment referred to by the hon. member is put out of context. It was not made by the research staff. It was referring to a statement made by the Canadian Auto Workers and the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers. It was not made specifically by the research staff. I want that corrected.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Perhaps it's a question of translation. I have the little blue document prepared by the research branch of the Library, which heard as I did the initial comments expressed by 80 percent of the people. Everyone agrees that more time would have to be spent on considering this bill. I am therefore demanding more time to consider this bill.
I refer to my experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources in order to speak about another issue of time. You know, Madam Chair, that before the Green Paper, there was a preconsultation. In the fall of 1994 we conducted a lengthy tour throughout Canada to hear as many people as possible on all the social programs, and in particular the reform of unemployment insurance. What happened? Between March and last December there was a period of more than eight months during which the government might have and should have - as it had promised and as was expected - presented a bill on unemployment insurance. The government therefore waited eight months before presenting a bill, and now they come and criticize us for one day and one night of work! What is that in comparison with the eight months during which nothing was done?
We think that one of the reasons why the government did not present its proposed reform of unemployment insurance was the referendum that occurred in Quebec. It was feared that this reform would result in some protests. I will not remind you of the incidents that occurred in Montreal during a demonstration that turned ugly. I do not approve of that but we could see, this winter, that people were clearly expressing, in the street, their opposition to this bill.
Notwithstanding all that, we waited until December - I refer to a date, since you talk to me of time. We have to limit our time, so they waited eight months to introduce a bill.
Secondly, they presented a bill and, still to gain time, they used an unusual procedure to skip the stage of second reading and go immediately to consideration in committee. This time, it was urgent. Obviously, we should have considered it in January, but January had gone and the House was to resume its proceedings on February 7.
Unfortunately, the government decided to prorogue the session, which prevented the committee from sitting. So, throughout February, we were unable to sit. We were put on hold, and it lasted more than one night, Madam Chair, rather several nights and even several weeks. We didn't know whether the government was going to reintroduce the then Bill C-111, which is now C-12 in the new Parliament.
You know that a bill is a big document. It is necessary to verify whether it is the same Act, the same clauses, and whether anything has been changed. In reality, we came to realize that the text was identical. But we lost a lot of time. And I have reason to believe that the government intends to implement this legislation by July 1, 1996.
Mr. Bonin: We give you five nights.
Mr. Dubé: We are criticized for one night of work but we lost several nights before coming back to sit.
.0915
On the other hand, we really wanted hearings to be held on the ground, where the people are experiencing some actual situations, as in Prince Edward Island, in the Maritimes where seasonal unemployment is really serious.
My colleague, Mr. Bonin, knows it is a problem of great concern to his voters in Northern Ontario, and I am sure he took the time to listen to each of his constituents during public meetings. I did so, too, in my riding, as did my colleague from Gaspé or the member from Kamouraska, and we all came to realize that the people were expressing incomprehension and astonishment.
Later, as the people came to understand the actual consequences of this bill, the incomprehension and astonishment gave way to anger and frustration. They clearly understood that unemployment insurance, which was changing its name to become employment insurance, was giving them in fact nothing more than the assurance of being monitored further.
You therefore sought to limit the number of witnesses. We, the Opposition, managed to invite some people from Gaspé Peninsula, but we did not have much choice. My colleague Mr. Bernier will surely speak to us about this.
Mr. Bonin: He can speak immediately, since he is very interesting.
Mr. Dubé: He is indeed a very eloquent man, who speaks with great passion of his riding. Not everyone has that gift of eloquence, don't you agree?
I nevertheless want to emphasize the issue of the time, Madam Chair. No one will challenge the fact that I have always been present at the meetings of the committee, like my party, and I have not stopped talking.
I remember once in Winnipeg, I asked, because of the convention of the General Council of the Bloc Québécois, whether it was possible not to have hearings that weekend, and it was not possible. I therefore held the fort on my own throughout an entire weekend.
You surely remember Winnipeg, Madam Chair. For three days, I literally exhausted myself asking questions and doing the work of the entire Opposition, even the work of the Reform party, which was under represented. Everyone was asking that I stay so they could have a quorum and I remained out of solidarity. I remained for three days!
There were demonstrations, in Winnipeg as elsewhere. We didn't even have time to eat. Furthermore, in order to keep to the schedules, we ate sandwiches while hearing witnesses and in the evening it was sandwiches again because we were sitting until 11:00 p.m. Ms Lalonde and Mr. Crête were there, too. You surely remember and you certainly remember as well our poor travelling conditions in an icy aeroplane in which he had to sing, you in English and I in French, to keep warm. Finally, we had recreated the Christmas spirit.
Mr. Bonin: We can sing together and we can also work together.
Mr. Dubé: Thanks to all that, despite our different roles, we learned to know each other, to work better together and to gain in mutual respect.
But back to the business at hand. Today, we are asking for a bit more time to consider this bill. There are 190 clauses and some experts who have not yet been heard. This is an important reform that we cannot adopt in one week.
.0920
Madam Chair, we must take sufficient time to do this work seriously.
Mr. Bonin: How much? Six months? One year?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Bonin was there last year, but he has missed a fair number of items. It is necessary, therefore, to take the time to explain to him everything he did not hear.
Mr. Bonin: I am trying to understand some things -
Mr. Dubé: You have changed since last year. Last year, you understood straight off. This year, I have to repeat.
Mr. Bonin: You are not saying anything.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Dubé
Mr. Dubé: No, I have not finished. I want to explain a procedural point to my colleague. The whip proposed a time limit. When I can speak within the time limit, I will be relevant. I have enough parliamentary experience to be sure of that. I also worked at the National Assembly as assistant to a minister.
As long as you are speaking to a time motion, you can take some time. You should understand exactly what that means.
Why not take the necessary time, Madam Chair? Until the arrival of my colleague Stéphane Tremblay, several weeks ago, I was the critic on training and youth.
With this bill, in some regions, the hours required to qualify for unemployment insurance go from 300 hours to 910 hours. We are still talking about time, therefore. We are telling those people that to qualify for unemployment insurance, they will have to triple their work time.
I am aware that this debate is not being broadcast or televised, but I am sure that if people could hear me and if the young people heard me, they would say that the member for Lévis, the former critic on training and youth, understands them. He takes the time to explain that with this reform they will need three times as much time before qualifying for unemployment insurance. Three times, which makes 910 hours!
On the time motion, still, someone was saying that it would take 61 weeks at 15 hours a week to qualify for unemployment insurance. Well, this is not possible because there are only 52 weeks in a year.
You changed the bill, and you converted the weeks into hours. It is still a question of time, the hours.
Mr. Bonin: There are some people who work 14 hours a week -
Mr. Dubé: Yes. There are some women who work 14 hours and who do not qualify.
Mr. Bonin: And with this change?
Mr. Dubé: I am going to inform my colleague, who seems lacking in details. Even with the new Act, working 14 hours a week, they will not qualify. To qualify, they would need to work about 72 weeks.
The difference, Madam Chair, is that they will be required to pay premiums from the outset. That will mean less money in their pockets and they will still not get unemployment insurance when they need it.
And what have you done as well? You have reduced the ceiling on the insurable wage, which was at $42,000, to $39,000. And here there will be a shortfall of $900 million, Madam Chair.
But in reality, the government is making up this theoretical loss by making the workers pay from the first hour and thus clawing back this $900 million which will be paid by those working less than 15 hours a week and who previously paid nothing.
I therefore propose to my colleagues, who may not have been aware of it, because we sit on different committees, to examine this issue.
This matter of hours is very important because, by agreeing to it, you are making a choice as to the kind of society you want. You have chosen to displace the burdens, on the one hand by lowering the insurable maximum from $42,000 to $39,000, and, on the other hand, by forcing those who previously paid no UI premiums, such as students and those working less than 15 hours, to pay.
.0925
I say it is a choice as to the kind of society we want. I also say that we must take the time to think carefully, and that the members who have not yet been able to examine this aspect of the bill should take the time to do so. The government members in front of me should also take the time to think about it.
Up to now, we have heard some witnesses and participated in a few debates, but now we would like to take the time to convince them. We think you are intelligent people and that after listening closely to us you will come around to our arguments and you will say, as we do, that this aspect of the bill is unreasonable.
Why, then, was the maximum insurable wage reduced from $42,000 to $39,000? One might have thought that as the years passed and the cost of living increased, wages would increase as well. Some unions told us they did not favour any limit, others put the limit at $75,000, and still others at $60,000.
Personally, I think it would have been reasonable to raise the ceiling. In fact, if we were to go from $42,000 to $45,000, there would be a surplus of 900 million instead of the opposite. Beyond $45,000, people seldom need to go and claim for unemployment insurance benefits because, generally speaking, they have stable jobs, are protected by unions and have a certain job security. This is a place where we could have made an appropriate choice in orientation.
But now it's the opposite. You say you are doing it for the havenots, but in fact the bill targets them, and would take more money from them. It will take 900 million dollars from them without even giving them the assurance that they can obtain more benefits.
The present Act certainly needed to be reviewed, because some employers were taking advantage of it. Indeed, to avoid paying premiums, they were providing only part-time jobs, which had a destructuring effect.
I would like to present to you a study on the evolution of the labour market. At present, in Canada as a whole, 30 percent of the jobs are casual, and more than 70 percent of those jobs are held by women. There are also young people, of course, but half of the young people are girls.
I will take advantage of the presence of some female colleagues from the other side of the House to draw their attention to this. The victims, after the youth, are women.
The victims, after the youth, are women because they hold more than 70 percent of the part-time jobs and we know that part-time jobs are less well paid, often at the minimum wage, less stable and unorganized.
.0930
I would also like to note that society is evolving, and more and more women are becoming heads of single-parent families. This is a social phenomenon. The men, unfortunately, do not always assume their responsibilities, and it is these women who will be most affected by a reduction in eligibility for unemployment insurance.
This is inconceivable to me, and I appeal to your good sense. I am sure that my colleagues across the way were elected on their good faith and that they are intelligent people, with well defined social values. I therefore hope that over time we will succeed in convincing them that it is worth the trouble to take all the time needed to reconsider this aspect of the reform and ensure that those people can qualify for unemployment insurance.
In this connection, when the government's chief whip proposes a motion to us, we notice that the objective is still the same. The goal is to limit the speaking time, to limit the duration of the debate, to prevent those would still like to be heard from speaking. But even if it is not in committee, people can draw attention through briefs, letters or other means to tell the government not to do this, for it radically changes the system of unemployment insurance and it is inhuman.
Since I want to continue to be relevant to this motion, I want to believe in the good faith of the people opposite. I want them to keep listening. I urge you to listen to my colleague from Gaspé, who will be speaking to you about a special problem, the problem of the seasonally unemployed.
These people also took some time during the weekend to come and demonstrate. They drove for seven hours by bus from Gaspé to Rivière-du-Loup for the demonstration, and it took them another seven hours to return home. But they thought it was worth the trouble to take all that time to tell the government what they thought. There were 5,000 of them in Rivière-du-Loup who thought it was important to walk calmly and take all the time required to acquaint the government with their point of view. It went very well, it was not professional agitators.
Madam Chair, do you know who I heard at the Rivière-du-Loup demonstration? The bishop of the diocese. That does not happen frequently. Archbishop Blanchet was appointed a few weeks ago. His Eminence said that the bill was a catastrophe for the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé Peninsula region. As you know, there was Opération dignité in that region.
As it happens, I am a typical example of a young person from the Lower St. Lawrence, of a former young person since I am 48 years old, who had to go and work in another region because there were no jobs in the Lower St. Lawrence. Thus I ended up in the constituency of Lévis, where I have been happy. It is a fine place, but it also has its problems.
I could talk to you about MIL Davie, which waited two years to get a reply from the government on the ferry project. And you come to us saying you don't have time and we must hurry to consider this bill! During this time, the others have reached the end of their unemployment insurance, and there are 46 percent of the new social assistance recipients in Quebec - .
Ms Harel said that 46 percent of the new social assistance recipients in Quebec are on the rolls because of the reductions. It should be said that Bill C-17 has already contributed to this figure. Yes, 46 percent of the new social assistance recipients in Quebec are there because of the reform of unemployment insurance, because of the reduction in the period. And you want to go even further!
I would also like to say that after hearing the Minister say that there was an increase in fraud, I requested a study.
.0935
I don't have the table right in front of me, but the facts are the following: there is a slight increase in costs, 277 million dollars, only 90 million of which is the result of fraud. The difference is the result of errors committed by employers in good faith, or errors by the Department of Human Resources Development. Since 1991 there has been a decrease in the number of frauds committed by people who have been caught. We have gone from 130,000 to 116,000, a decrease which, while not major, contradicts what the Minister was suggesting when he spoke of an aggravation of the problem.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Excuse me, Mr. Dubé. Speak to the amendment, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am arguing that we must take our time because the period of time proposed to us by the chief whip is insufficient to examine the aspects and consequences which people are asking that we consider at greater length. The report I just mentioned and that we received only yesterday morning is an example of this.
First we were given a table, handed a report and given explanations yesterday afternoon; we realized that it was very incomplete. For example, I asked if they could break down the data by province. The reply was that they could probably do so, but it would take some time. Could they provide a breakdown by industry, to find out whether the number of frauds is higher in certain industrial sectors? They didn't know; the study had not been made. How much time would it take to conduct the study? They didn't know, and it would take some time. They didn't have the necessary data and it would take some time, more time. We're not talking about hours and nights, but much longer.
We asked many times for details about the impacts and, by dint of insisting -
[English]
Mr. Easter: Madam Chair, on a point of order, that question was directed to the staff yesterday. They responded. They said they would gather the information in terms of the provinces, relative to that question in terms of fraud. They said due to the way their statistics are done for them, it was impossible to do it by industry.
The hon. member is repeating himself, and I would ask you to call him to order.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The member is right and confirms what I said: so far, they have not had the time to present us with the data by province. They say it is feasible, but it will necessitate a little bit more time. It is feasible because they do have the data.
In the other case, it is even worse: they don't have the data by industry and they would have to go and collect it, I suppose. I thank the member for his comments, which confirm the need to take more time to clarify all that.
It is rather astonishing. We were told that we didn't need to ask ourselves any questions about this or that period. I am speaking here of documents that we received and of those that we did not receive. How can we be accused of not taking the time to dwell on it?
Another question of time. The member from the Reform party, Ms Brown, asked to have more time. She had requested the assistance of legislative counsel to prepare her presentation last week. And what happens? She is told in a letter - she read it to us yesterday - that the legislative counsel would be unable to reply to her request in time. Well, yes! Another question of time!
[English]
Mr. Proud: [Inaudible - Editor] Thursday evening.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Ms Brown can say more to us about it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Madame Brown will speak on it when she has an opportunity. Madame Brown has indicated she would like to speak as soon as you're through,Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Yes, she can probably -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Madame Brown would like to speak.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I know that I am entitled to continue my speech; I will not waste the time that I am allowed. However, I do want to emphasize, on the second day of our deliberations, the relevance of establishing the notion of time.
In light of what I have said, why do you not demand more time than the whip is proposing? The studies are not completed, some are not even begun.
.0940
The legislative counsel were not available to respond to the request by the Reform party. A host of people were unable to be heard, for lack of time. There are at least three times as many groups as those we have heard who would like to appear.
No agency in the Quebec City area has been able to appear. Even Ms Lalande, the president of Action chômage Québec, who works day-to-day with people on unemployment insurance and whose name was on the proposed list, was told that the committee would not have sufficient time to hear from her. I have some difficulty with that. I have to return to my constituents. No agency in the greater Quebec City area was able to appear. None.
You can verify what happened in the case of the Regroupement des organismes communautaires de la Rive-Sud de Québec. You will recall, Madam Chair, that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development went to Lévis one Saturday and we assured the people that we would hear from them during our consideration. These people are disappointed. I am aware that it is in my riding and that it could be said that their votes are of some importance to me.
Some agencies in the ridings of the independent members from Beauce county asked to be heard, and the committee replied that it did not have the time. The same thing occurred in the riding of the Liberal member Patrick Gagnon and in the riding of Saint-Maurice, where people came to demonstrate at the office of the Prime Minister.
We did not take the time to hear them. This question of time is very relevant, especially since we are not talking now about changing weeks to hours. This is a central question. I am not repeating myself and I don't want to waste your time. I yield the floor to other speakers, but I shall return to other aspects that I consider important.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mrs. Brown.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I'm not sure how long my voice is going to last, but I have a few comments I'd like to make about events as they have unfolded from yesterday and today's motion and the amendment before us right now.
Madam Chairman, yesterday I expressed some concern and deep regret that legislative counsel had not been able to provide my office with the necessary supports to prepare amendments for clause-by-clause such as we required. I'd like to read into the record today part of a memo that came from the parliamentary secretary to the House leader of the Liberal Party when he indicated that there was no backlog whatsoever in the office of legislative counsel and that in fact the office had not had before it a great pressure of work for some time.
My office received this memo from legislative counsel on April 22. It said:
- Due to time constraints and the priorities in effect in our office, I have unfortunately not been
able to familiarize myself with Bill C-12. As such, I have been unable to identify those
provisions in the bill that may require amendment in consequence of Mrs. Brown's proposed
amendments. Furthermore, although I have done my best in the circumstances, I cannot assure
Mrs. Brown that the amendments that have been drafted for her are legally watertight.
.0945
As you will recall, Madam Chairman, this committee sat during January and we prorogued in February. Upon prorogation, the bill in effect died on the Order Paper. So when we came back in March to a brand-new minister, we also came back to a brand-new bill.
Yesterday we received from the research staff the details of the minister's changes and amendments that he wished to see within the bill itself. So I have to take exception to my colleagues' saying yesterday that this has been before the committee for many months. In fact, the bill in its newest form has really been before us only since March.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mrs. Brown, I appreciate your intervention, but at this point in time we are on the amendments.
Mrs. Brown: Yes, and I'm moving to that. This is just to provide the context in which I am going to move this amendment.
Also, the consternation.... There was divisiveness within the committee yesterday, as well.
As the discussions unfolded yesterday, we talked a lot about the whole issue of time: the time that we did not have to prepare our amendments, the fact that legislative counsel had said that they were under constraints, and the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader said that legislative counsel were under no time constraints at all. There seemed to be some conflict there in terms of what was real and what was not.
I find it regrettable that the whip of the Liberal Party has brought in an amendment to invoke closure. I feel that that is an infringement on our democratic right to free speech. In view of the fact that I cannot tolerate that action, I'm going to move a subamendment that we delete the words ``April 29'' and replace them by the words ``June 22, 1996''. It is indeed regrettable that the whip of the Liberal Party forgot to include the year. So I am moving that the words be deleted and replaced by ``June 22''.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): That's a lot of weekends, Jan.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Could we see the amendment in writing, and do you have a seconder for your amendment?
Mrs. Brown: I don't believe I need a seconder.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Does she need a seconder for her amendment? No.
Could we then move on to another speaker.
Mr. Proud: Question.
Mr. Easter: Question.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Do we deal with her amendment right now?
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: No, no.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Bernier asked to speak and was on the list. Mr. Paré did likewise. I will go on the list after the others.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We need to deal with her amendment.
Mr. Easter: On the amendment to the amendment, because some were not here yesterday, when this was discussed originally, I just want to report that on the problem of legislative counsel and the letter to which Mrs. Brown referred, as was stated at yesterday's hearing, Mr. Allmand called legislative counsel and was informed that no proposals had come forward until approximately five o'clock on Thursday last. I don't think we can be accused of limiting time because of the tardiness of the Reform Party in getting their amendments forward in time. I want to put that on the record, because it should be noted.
Mrs. Brown: I would like to respond to that. We went through this yesterday. In terms the particular point made by my colleague from Malpeque, I find that those remarks today are even more inappropriate than they were yesterday.
.0950
We got into a whole discussion about breach of confidentiality of an MP with respect toMr. Allmand seeking information about the strategy of the Reform Party insofar as his investigation of the request for amendments that we had put forward. I don't want to get into that again -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No, please.
Mrs. Brown: - but if Mr. Easter would like to, we certainly will.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): What I will do now is go to my speakers list. I'll ask Marlene Catterall to speak on the subamendment.
[Translation]
Ms Catterall (Ottawa-West): I agree with Mr. Dubé that this is a very important bill and that the committee spent a lot of time hearing from witnesses throughout the country. I fully agree that we must take the necessary time and that we should not waste it.
[English]
What I see is that this committee started its work at 10 a.m. yesterday. We have wasted a full 24 hours. We were not on the substance of issues that are a concern to the workers of this country, to people who are unemployed or potentially unemployed, to people who are wanting to find appropriate training programs and looking for more investment into those training programs so they can have a chance to improve their employability.
That's not what this committee has dealt with for the last 3 full days, as 24 hours is 3 full working days. This is what the Bloc has wasted instead of dealing with the real issues of concern to the workers and the unemployed of this country.
Mr. Easter: Shame.
Mr. Proud: Terrible.
Ms Catterall: Now, I could be very specific about some of the issues that I've listened to just in the last hour, Madam Chair, but I really don't have any right. I haven't shared with the rest of you the burden of hearing from people across this country and of trying to come to grips with the issues of trying to find a proper balance between the financial resources available through the unemployment insurance system, now the employment insurance system, and the tremendous needs of millions of Canadians out there.
But I have to say that whatever your view on the issue is, get on and deal with it, because those millions of people out there are waiting for you to deal with it. If you have something you want to change in this bill, for God's sake, for their sake, do it. But don't sit here for 24 hours, wasting 3 full working days with 12 people or more. That's not even counting the staff; that's just counting the members of Parliament. You've wasted 3 full days.
Ms Torsney: It's a waste of time and money.
Ms Catterall: Surely, after all the time you've spent on this, you know what you want to do and change. Let's get on and deal with it. Mr. Boudria's motion has said to get on and deal with it. Apparently, the only way the Bloc is going to get on and deal with it is if they know they have a time limit.
Now, we're reasonable. If the committee's getting on and doing its work and needs another day or two or another week, we are reasonable people. We want to see the bill well done. That's why we referred to this committee in the first place instead of having it come in as a government bill.
We're prepared to be reasonable if you're working on the bill, but not if you're sitting here wasting the whole night, forcing people to go without sleep and food, accomplishing nothing except hearing your own voices say the same things over and over and over again.
Now, please, in the interests of all those people out there who are waiting for us to complete this work, just get on and do it. Stop this stage playing and grandstanding.
Mr. Proud: Hear, hear!
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, let's do the subcommittee.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Point of privilege.
[English]
An hon. member: Oh, not again.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Privilege. Go ahead.
.0955
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: With all due respect for Ms Catterall, she seems to be saying that the comments I made during the greater part of the last hour were a waste of time.
May I remind members of the debate that is now taking place in the House on the GST, a bill in regard to which, during their deliberations in committee in 1990, the Liberals spent three months trying to prevent its adoption. I don't have to remind you of the tenacity with which they maintained their position at that time.
I do not accept that this party comes and lectures to us about the time wasted, after taking three months and, a few years later, resuming that debate. No member of the Opposition is obliged to spend the night here; it is a decision of the government to keep the staff here. It is your decision; don't accuse us of it.
We are thereby saving money.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I recall these points because they are important. That is parliamentary life. There may be some members here who are just starting out in the House and who don't recall the events. There are some precedents. Mr. Boudria, the whip, is well aware of it. They took three months in committee to prevent the adoption of the GST. It is unacceptable to me that we be lectured on this. This is a point of privilege. Don't lecture Ms Brown for wanting -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am very tired of it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, Mr. Dubé. You have made your point.
But you're not saying that they spent three months to stop something going through and that you've spent the hours to stop this bill from going through. Is that what you were saying?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I compare that issue to unemployment insurance, from which more than three million people drew benefits last year.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No. The point I'm making, Mr. Dubé, is that your intent right now is not to stop this from going through, because the exercise here is really to go through clause-by-clause to make this the best possible piece of legislation we can bring before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I would like to respond to these comments.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: During our speeches, we - Ms Lalonde, the permanent members of the committee and the other people who came - tried to get the government representatives to understand what people had told us, to get them to change their mind about some things that were unacceptable in our view. That is the role of the Opposition. I am disappointed that my colleague opposite has not -
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Catterall: On a point of order, Madam Chair, Mr. Dubé has raised a point of privilege with respect to my comment. You haven't ruled on that yet. Perhaps before you do, I might give you the benefit of my own advice or my own comments on the point of privilege. But first I'd like to ask Mr. Dubé a question so I can respond to his charge of the breach of his privilege.
When in the last 24 hours was the last time...? He's trying to read our minds and assume that the members of this committee on the government side don't understand the issues. So he's been, I gather, lecturing the Liberal members for the last 24 hours so they will understand.
I'd like to ask when the last time was that he put forward a concrete motion on which we could debate and on which he could try to understand whether the Liberal members did in fact understand the issue or not. Until he puts forward a concrete motion, we can't let him know whether we agree with him or disagree with him. He therefore has no basis on which to assume that we don't understand, and he has to deliver another 24-hour lecture.
Can he tell me when the last time was that he put forward something to this committee that it could deal with?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It is unfortunate that people don't listen in this parliamentary life. At the very end of the last hour, I asked my colleagues to make representations to their Minister to convince him to withdraw the limit. I spoke for 15 minutes on this issue, and my colleague did not grasp what I was saying. I will not come back to it, Madam Chair. Must I repeat?
[English]
Mr. Proud: [Inaudible - Editor] motion.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Was there a motion?
Click here to go to next section