I have said, and repeated, that I was very sorry that we are being forced to go through this expedited process, which does not allow Canadians and Quebeckers to be provided with sufficient information, and in particular, the bill to which they are entitled, given the capacities of this country and the new needs that exist.
I will stop there, but I am extremely disappointed and concerned. Basically, it is somewhat embarrassing for all those who are working on it and who may never need the minimum security that a system should secure. The people who enact the laws should know how necessary this security is. Insecurity means that you don't have the money you need to pay for your housing, your telephone bill and your other bills.
The monitoring comes afterwards. We ought to have been capable of adopting a good plan. We have the resources needed to provide ourselves with a plan that does not put people in difficulty.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I really have to make some comments about the critic for the Bloc, because I've never encountered a statement that was so far wrong in my life.
When we listen to people like Alice Nakamura, the professor at the University of Alberta...
A voice: Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Nault: You would think, Mr. Chairman, when she says to us in her comments... And in fairness, I hope the critic has read that particular brief, because she wasn't there that day, and this was a very good brief. Part of the brief said: ``Your children and your grandchildren will thank you if you go ahead with these changes to this particular legislation''.
I think the most exciting part of this bill is going from weeks to hours, and I've been saying that all around my riding, Mr. Chairman.
The other issue is this one about driving people to work overtime. Mr. Chairman, I have a seasonal, industry-related area. In some cases unionized workers who have a very significant collective agreement get paid overtime if they work more than the eight hours in a shift. But the majority of Canadians don't belong to unions - the vast majority. We know that for a fact. And those people in areas like mine who work six months, and try to make enough income in six months to last them a year, especially in the summertime -
Let's use the tourism industry, for example, Mr. Chairman. This switch from weeks to hours is going to be such a tremendous benefit to those people. It's hard to even explain it in this room. They work sometimes 10, 12 hours a day, and they're going to benefit significantly. There are going to be more people who will be able to collect unemployment because of these changes. There will be a larger number of people who will be able to collect and qualify than ever before.
I don't know why the Bloc continues to suggest to the outside world that we can't take what she perceives to be some sort of leap into the dark, because we're going to see a catastrophe take place. That's like saying we couldn't bring in medicare, Mr. Chairman, because we'd never tried it before, and it would be a tremendous problem.
Now, from a social activist perspective, I find that to be absolutely unacceptable, because quite frankly this is a very good piece of legislation that's going to make significant changes and improvements. And when that happens, the only way you can find that out when you make those fundamental changes and behavioural change is to put it in place and monitor it.
If the member is saying to me that because we can't give her ironclad guarantees... Well, the problem is that there is no such thing as an ironclad guarantee in anything we do.
I could find you an economist for every economist or every individual she finds, Mr. Chairman, who is for and against this. I mean, I don't think the economists have ever been right on anything. They're just crystal-balling like everybody else.
She keeps using this individual; I don't know where he's from. I think it's Laval University that she keeps using.
All I'm saying is that when she reads the brief from Alice Nakamura, she'll find out that that's the real story, and there are a lot of people out there who believe that.
.1405
Now, the other issue - I just want to stress this - of seasonal employees and the fact that they will benefit from the hourly system... Where I come from, I have one-fifth of Ontario's land mass. It's like saying I have a fifth of Quebec's land mass, because the provinces are of an equal size. I have huge industries there - the forestry, the mining and the tourism - and all these folks end up on UI.
Do you know how many demonstrations I've had, Mr. Chairman? None. Why is that? In a lot of these mills people work in they're all unionized, and they're not rioting and running around demonstrating. Is it because they're so well protected in Ontario and they're so vulnerable in Quebec? Well, it's because they're being told the real facts about the bill.
In my householder I've gone out of my way to send every single individual an explanation of this bill, thinking, well, if they don't like it, they're going to rise up, and they're going to tell me it's an awful, terrible thing.
Do you know how many letters I've had, Mr. Chairman? None, not one.
Then the member says these demonstrations in Quebec are not orchestrated, they're not phoning up these union leaders.
I just wanted to make one last comment. I was a labour leader for eight years. I did that for a living, and I know how we set up demonstrations, because I set up many myself. I controlled the whole strike when we shut down the railway from Vancouver to Thunder Bay. I was in charge of it.I know exactly how it works, Mr. Chairman. And for her to sit here and say they never made one phone call, never organized anything, these people are all just so upset... Well, if I told them half-truths and 50% of the story, I'd be mad about it, too, because I'd be scared.
That's the real issue here, that's why they don't want to come out of this committee, and that's why they don't want to go into the House and have a good solid debate, so we can tell the real story.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, we can't go to the House. Mr. Nault, when you make some arguments, I can understand. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we were not allowed a debate on second reading and he comes and tells us we're afraid to go to the House.
[English]
The Chairman: That's not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, you gave me the floor.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, I have a point of order from Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. You indicated that you were going to hear from Mr. Nault, and then from me. Madam Lalonde is not bringing forward a point of order or any other kind of question procedurally, so I think we should follow the -
The Chairman: Exactly. That's why I'm going to you, Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Just one second. As I said earlier, conversations will take place outside this committee room. I have no tolerance for that.
Anybody who wants to be recognized goes through me. I'm not going to waste any more time like this.
Mr. Regan, you're first. Madame Lalonde, you're after that.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to comment on this issue of the move toward an hours-based eligibility system.It seems to me that measuring the number of hours a person works is a far more realistic way of measuring work in the vast majority of occupations across this country. In fact in the new system you'll make it easier for most people to meet the entrance requirements.
A key result of this will be that all part-time work becomes insurable. That's a very important point, especially for those people who work in more than one part-time job. There a lot of those today who may work 14 hours in one job, 14 hours in another job, and 14 hours in another one, but they don't qualify for unemployment insurance under the present system. This movement to hours will change that, and that's a very important point.
In the Atlantic provinces the majority of unemployment insurance claimants, 86% of them, already work 35 hours or more per week, so moving to an hours-based system will improve things for them. Half a million additional part-time workers will be covered because of these changes, and 270,000 of those are women. I'm surprised the Bloc wouldn't be supportive of that kind of change. As a matter of fact, 380,000 of them will get premiums refunded.
Even in Quebec, agricultural workers, who work an average of 43.5 hours per week, will findit easier to qualify than under the present bill because of these changes. Yet the Bloc opposes. I guess they're opposing agricultural workers getting into the system easier.
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Lalonde: No.
Mr. Regan: That I find amazing, Mr. Chairman, and I see a whole range of things -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: If you don't want to interrupt him, remind him not to provoke us. Let's saywe are -
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Lalonde...
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: ...sufficiently provoked as it is.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Regan, are you going to wrap up your comments?
Mr. Regan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'd say that certainly I'm amazed. If anything, we've been provoked a great deal, and we've been very patient over the past several days. I intend to keep being very patient.
.1410
The arguments we've seen throughout these hearings, and from our witnesses especially, about the benefits of moving to an hours-based system are now well established. I think it's going to be very good for seasonal workers and Canadians generally. Thank you.
The Chairman: Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Basically, we could have presented an amendment to say that someone who holds two jobs can add up his or her weeks. We could have done it with weeks as well as with hours. There was absolutely nothing to stand in the way of that. We were saying it was 15 hours with one employer. That was the problem.
Having said that, you confirm through your comments - Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to you - exactly what I think, namely, that the system was conceived for people who are in the regions. I know that this is a special situation and I know there are some countries where they also have a special system for the regions. I know there was some research to this effect that the committee created by the Minister himself first decided that it could not agree on anything and that everyone should be subject to the general system.
But there was a problem when the system was transformed. That is why we are encouragingthe increase in overtime and the holding of two jobs. I am thinking of the examples provided bythe Department itself. Mr. Nault's explanation confirms precisely the interpretation I am giving.Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, I think the points have all been made. Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Carried.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I request a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: On division? Do you want a roll call?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, could the clerk tell us what we're voting on?
The Clerk: You're voting now on Clause 7.
Mr. Nault: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, we don't need to vote on the whole of Clause 7. There is a new Clause 7.1.
[English]
A voice: That's a new thing?
The Chairman: That's a new section.
Clause 7 agreed to: Yeas 8; Nays 1
The Chairman: Now we move to Clause 7.1. Any discussion?
.1415
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: He will have to explain it to us.
[English]
The Chairman: Good news.
Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being here and practising my English reading.
This is a new Clause 7.1. I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 on page 11 the following, with the marginal note ``Increase in required hours'':
``7.1 (1) The number of hours that an insured person, other than a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force, requires under section 7 to qualify for benefits is increased to the number provided in the following table if the insured person accumulates one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making their initial claim for benefit.''
I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to table the table. It's pretty hard to explain the table, or say something about the table at this point.
Going past the table, we get to ``New entrants and re-entrants to the labour force'':
``(2) The number of hours that an insured person who is a new entrant or re-entrant to the labour force requires under section 7 to qualify for benefits is increased if, in the 260 weeks before making their initial claim for benefit, the person accumulates (a) a minor violation, in which case the number of required hours is increased to 1,138 hours; (b) a serious violation, in which case the number of required hours is increased to 1,365 hours; or (c) a very serious violation, in which case the number of required hours is increased to 1,400 hours.
``Limitation''
(3) A violation may not be taken into account under subsection (1) or (2) in more than two initial claims for benefits if the insured person qualified for benefits with the increased number of hours in each of those claims.
``Violations''
(4) An insured person accumulates a violation if in any of the following circumstances the Commission issues a notice of violation to the person:
(a) one or more penalties are imposed on the person under section 38, 39, 41.1 or 65.1, as a result of acts or omissions mentioned in sections 38, 39 or 65.1;
(b) the person is found guilty of one or more offences under section 135 or 136 as a result of acts or omissions mentioned in those sections; or
(c) the person is found guilty of one or more offences under the Criminal Code as a result of acts or omissions relating to the application of this Act.
``Classification of violations''
(5) Except for violations for which a warning was imposed, each violation is classified as a minor, serious, very serious or subsequent violation as follows:
(a) if the value of the violation is (i) less than $1,000, it is a minor violation, (ii) $1,000 or more, but less than $5,000, it is a serious violation, or (iii) $5,000 or more, it is a very serious violation; and
(b) if the notice of violation is issued within 260 weeks after the person accumulates another violation, it is a subsequent violation, even if the acts or omissions on which it is based occurred before the person accumulated the other violation.
``Value of violations''
(6) The value of a violation is the total of
(a) the amount of the overpayment of benefits resulting from the acts or omissions on which the violation is based, and
(b) if the claimant is disqualified or disentitled from receiving benefits, or the act or omission on which the violation is based relates to qualification requirements under section 7, the amount determined subject to subsection (7), by multiplying the claimant's weekly rate of benefit by the average number of weeks of regular benefits, as determined under the regulations.
``Maximum''
(7) The maximum amount to be determined under paragraph (6)(b) is the amount of benefits that could have been paid to the claimant if the claimant had not been disentitled or disqualified or had met the qualification requirements under section 7.''
Did I miss anything, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.
Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I am concerned. First, why is the definition of ``violation'' not included in the definitions?
.1420
Mr. Leduc: Simply because it was seen as a special Clause.
Mrs. Lalonde: It came after -
Mr. Leduc: The notion of ``violation'' is found in only two places in the Act.
Mrs. Lalonde: In French, it states:
``(4) Il y a violation lorsque le prestataire se voit donner un avis de violation''
But the Commission could very well be mistaken.
Mr. Leduc: In that case, the person, if he wants to challenge it, has a right of appeal.
Mrs. Lalonde: That is why it is important to define ``violation''. In French it refers to someone who ``a perpétré un ou plusieurs délictueux'', Wow! It's even worse than in English. Look at what is written in English:
[English]
``One or more penalties are imposed on the person under section 38.''
[Translation]
In French it says:
``a) il a perpétré un ou plusieurs actes délictueux''
Mr. Leduc: As you can see, it is the same language as that used in the present Act.
Mrs. Lalonde: And they translated into French what was in English?
Mr. Leduc: What is translated into French
Mrs. Lalonde: I don't know who was the opposition at the time - I think it was the Liberals - but it makes no sense.
Mr. Leduc: They don't have the same stylistics to translate it. It is not translated, but it says the same thing.
Mrs. Lalonde: It's far from the same stylistics. When you say ``il a perpétré un ou plusieurs actes délictueux''. It is as ``prévu à l'article 38, 39 ou 65''. In any event, I think the translation makes no sense.
Mr. Leduc: These are not translations. Fortunately for the languages, sometimes, you reflect the same idea in a somewhat different language, but it means the same thing.
Mrs. Lalonde: But there is one that is punitive and the other descriptive. That makes a heck of a difference.
Mr. Leduc: No, it's the same thing.
Mrs. Lalonde: Let's see now! A good French translation would say: ``Quelqu'un à qui on a imposé des pénalités en vertu de l'article x''. Here it says: ``a perpétré un ou plusieurs actes délictueux''.
Mr. Leduc: The person referred to in Clauses 38 and 39 is someone who has perpetrated.... They have the same notion in English. It is someone who has been subjected to a penalty because he has committed the offence or the violation.
Mrs. Lalonde: I come back to my initial question. There is a violation when the claimant is given a notice of violation.
It seems to me this should be qualified. It ought to be a notice of violation that is upheld, because the violation is one thing. The Commission can send a notice, but it can be mistaken. So there is a violation once it has been established.
Mr. Leduc: Yes, and that is what is provided. That is, the violation is registered by the notice of violation, because the person has perpetrated one of the acts or omissions referred to in Clauses 38 and 39 or in Sub-Clause 65(1).
Mrs. Lalonde: It seems to me there is something that's not right. I am going to look at that.
Mr. Leduc: The person would have the possibility to appeal. Perhaps the procedure should be explained in greater detail.
[English]
Issues a notice. Okay.
The Chairman: Any further questions?
.1425
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Just a moment, I have to make an immediate amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, do you have a question?
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to refresh the members' memories to the fact that we had a significant explanation of this particular process by the officials not too long ago that explained exactly how the new Clause would work. I just wanted to make sure that's on the record, because of course the opposition is portraying that this is the first time they've ever seen this or had an explanation of what this new Clause would do. I certainly want to make sure that's not the case.
The Chairman: Madam Lalonde, I'd like to deal with this Clause right at the moment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You can't say it isn't quick. It's not just two words we're changing.
A voice: When did we get a copy?
Mrs. Lalonde: It was distributed earlier this morning. There was another version, but they changed it.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we ready for the question here on this Clause?
Mr. Nault: It is my understanding that the opposition is putting in an amendment; if so, it would have to stand down, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Do you want this Clause to stand? Is there an agreement with that? I need some answers here.
Mr. Nault: No, we're prepared to vote for it right now, but I'm trying to find out what Madam Lalonde is doing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Listen, you know we just got the wording.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
A voice: Are there some differences with the former text?
[English]
Mr. Nault: The question was whether you want us to stand it down so we can get on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, so we'll stand it.
Mr. Nault: Fine, stand down.
Clause 7.1 allowed to stand
Clause 8 agreed to
The Clerk: Mr. Chair, there is an amendment to Clause 9, which nobody has moved.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chair, just a moment please.
An hon. member: Clause 8 is carried; we're on Clause 9 now.
Mr. Nault: There is an amendment to Clause 9. It is moved that Clause 9 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 13 and substituting the following: ``under Section 7 or 7.1 makes an initial claim for''.
That's the extent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman; it's just fitting in the new Clause 7.1.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Have we finished Clause 8?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Please, if you think it is no use, my colleagues and I can leave. If you adopt the Clauses like that.... That's fine, I'm leaving.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I understand it's pretty difficult.
The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde, I asked for discussion. Nobody had anything to say about it so we moved forward. I think I'm following the rules.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We have three series of amendments, some new ones, some old ones, the French text, the English text and the Act, Clause-by-Clause. I find that a bit much.
[English]
The Chairman: You can't accuse me of rushing the process. It's 2:30 p.m. and we haven't even dealt with nine Clauses.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Go ahead.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: We stood down 7.1 and the member accepted that.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Nault : Then we went to Clause 8 and you asked if there was any debate.
The Chairman: There was no discussion.
Mr. Nault: She didn't say anything. Then we asked -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Excuse me, but I haven't even had time to locate where I am in my papers: we have the old amendments, the new amendments and the Act, Clause-by-Clause. It's no joke.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, that's fine. We'll give you some time to organize the papers on your table.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I may have nothing more to say except that I don't agree.
[English]
The Chairman: But don't accuse the chair of not posing the questions, because I did, and then we moved on.
.1430
Mr. Nault: My point, Mr. Chairman, was this. If the member wants us to hang on, then all she has to say, when we say ``carried'', is that we should hang on because she wants to debate this or she wants to look it up first. If nobody says anything, we assume... The opposition isn't going to say ``carried''. She's not in favour of it, so she's not going to say ``carried''.
The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that it's not our fault that her members and the other party are not here. I have a little sympathy when you're on your own trying to do this all by yourself, but that's not our fault, quite frankly.
The Chairman: We're on Clause 9.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: In the future, Mr. Chairman...
[English]
The Chairman: There's an amendment, apparently, in Clause 9, and you read it. Now we're going to discuss the amendment.
An hon. member: Can we read it again?
The Chairman: No, it has already been read.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please not go so fast in future. I haven't learned everything by heart. I am not acquainted with the content of Clause 8. If, while I am looking at it, you ask whether there is something, I will not be able to tell you to stop.
[English]
The Chairman: I will try to go a little bit more slowly.
Mrs. Lalonde: Merci.
The Chairman: Any discussion on the amendments?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: What amendment are you proposing to Clause 9?
[English]
The Chairman: The amendment was read by Mr. Nault. Mr. Nault, could you kindly reread your amendment for Madame Lalonde?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: That's all right. It is simply concordance.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 9 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 10 - Beginning of benefit period
The Chairman: Now we're on Clause 10. Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like some particulars: why was there a minor alteration in the wording?
Mr. Leduc: Some minor alterations were made in several places.
Mr. Gordon McFee (Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): This was done in the framework of a restructuring of the Act. We made some changes to a number of sections in order to modernize the text, among other things by eliminating in the English version some references to the male or female sex.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I know. However, I wonder whether in this specific case -
Ms Michèle René de Cotret (lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): It is exactly the same thing in French.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you. Your comments dealt with some minor alterations. That's fine.
[English]
Clause 10 agreed to on division
On Clause 11 - Week of unemployment
The Chairman: Now we are on Clause 11. Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Just a moment, please.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I will give you a minute.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Could someone explain to me Sub-Clause (4) of Clause 11?
Mr. McFee: The Sub-Clause states that people who regularly work a greater number of hours than is normally worked in this kind of employment and are given some compensatory leave will not qualify for benefits during the leave.
Mrs. Lalonde: During the leave?
Mr. McFee: This is not new.
Mrs. Lalonde: All right. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, can I have that explained in English, because the translator didn't get any of that from Mr. McFee, and I'd like to hear that in English.
Mr. McFee: Sorry. It stands for the proposition that people who habitually work a greater number of hours or shifts in the kind of employment they're in than people who ordinarily work in that kind of employment and who, in return for that, have compensatory time off, will be considered to be disentitled during the compensatory time off.
The other point I made was that this is not new.
Mr. Nault: Thank you.
Clause 11 agreed to
.1435
On Clause 12 - Benefits
The Chairman: Now we move to Clause 12. Any discussion on Clause 12? Yes, Madame Lalonde, I'm aware that you need a few minutes to go through it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I have a technical question in relation to the definition of ``major or minor attachment claimant''. What should be done to facilitate accessibility to maternity leaves?
[English]
Ms Smith: Could you explain what you mean by first-category claimant and second-category claimant?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Claimant.
[English]
Ms Smith: Major and minor. There's no change.
Mrs. Lalonde: There's no change. Okay, the change comes from Clause 7.
[Translation]
I deplore the fact that Clause 7 will make access to maternity leaves even more difficult for many women. This is regrettable for Canada as a whole, and particularly difficult for Quebec, where the birth rate is usually lower. This could be explained by the difficulty in getting assistance during pregnancy. We are deeply affected by this issue, and I would have really wanted to convince my colleagues to ensure that maternity leaves not become so difficult to get. This is a serious problem we will be experiencing in Quebec, as in Toronto, where there are pockets of unemployment. It is a serious matter that some women are unemployed and do not have access to unemployment insurance benefits. I think you will have to concede the point; it is quite unfortunate.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Lalonde. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, before the member gets too far down and at the end of the limb of the tree on this affair, we are going to rectify that problem at report stage. That particular amendment needs a royal recommendation. Therefore, it will not be put at this stage. It will be put at report stage in the House. I just wanted to inform the member of that, because we are also as concerned about women and those who are pregnant as is she. Thank you.
The Chairman: I think this more or less -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But we haven't yet been given that amendment.
[English]
Mr. Nault: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: The amendment will be presented in the House.
[English]
The Chairman: No, it will be in the House. That's quite clear.
Mr. Nault: Because it costs money.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to
On Clause 14 - Rate of weekly benefits
The Chairman: Now we move to Clause 14. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 14 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by adding, immediately after line 34, the following, with the marginal note ``Maximum weekly insurable earnings'':
- ``(1.1) the maximum weekly insurable earnings is
(b) if the claimant's benefit period begins in a subsequent year, the maximum yearly insurable earnings divided by 52.''
(b) by striking out lines 27 and 28 on page 19 and substituting the following, with the marginal note ``Insurable earnings'':
- ``(3) Insurable earnings in the rate calculation period shall be established and calculated in
accordance with the regulations that include earnings from any insurer.''
- ``(5) For the purpose of achieving a uniform divisor of 22 in subsection (2), the Minister may,
with the approval of the Governor in Council, by regulation amend the table in that subsection
by increasing to a maximum of 22.''
Mr. Chairman, I might add for the members and for the record that there are a number of amendments, including the amendments of the members themselves, Mr. Regan, Mr. Scott, and Ms Augustine, that won't be put at this committee because they need royal recommendation. They will be put in the House of Commons. This is to inform everyone that in fact we have accepted those amendments as a government and they will be in this bill when all is said and done when this leaves the House of Commons at third reading. But they won't be put at this committee and those amendments are not in the opposition's packages because we will be putting them at report stage.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on this? Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Why ask for Royal Assent? There is a financial impact, of course, but no overall financial impact on the reform, which will be subject to cuts in the same amount. Why not deal with this amendment here and now?
[English]
The Chairman: I think Mr. Nault already explained that.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I already explained before the member was in the room that it has a very large financial impact, and if some $400 million isn't large enough for the member, it's quite large for a lot of us Canadians who are middle class.
We have basically been given the recommendation by the justice department and the lawyers that it has to be a royal recommendation. I'm sorry I have to explain it twice, but I know the member had to go to question period.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The parliamentary secretary has not understood my question. I am going to repeat it because I knew very well what he said. I was able to understand it very easily.
I concede that there is an impact of several hundred million dollars, but the total financial parameters of the government remain unchanged. The total cuts remain the same; you are not altering the overall envelope in any way. If you don't alter the overall envelope in financial terms, why can't you make some adjustments within it? If not, any amendment that would change the least penny within the proposal should be subject to the same process.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: The obvious reason is that when we go Clause-by-Clause, you need royal recommendation for every individual Clause. It's not the overall emphasis of how much money is in or out. That's the rationale; that's the advice we've been given.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little frustrated and fed up with the opposition always suggesting the integrity of the expertise we're getting is not as good as maybe the information they're getting. Whenever our officials give them the opinion they've got professionally, they disagree with it and they almost suggest they're not being either factually correct or being honest with them.
Again, I give them the information and they suggest that it can't be. Unless this gentleman is a lawyer and an expert in the proceedings of how we go about Parliament, it's ridiculous, because this has been going on forever in this committee.
The Chairman: You have well made the point. Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I repeat my question, since I did not get a response.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I did give you the response.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Could you repeat it? Did someone understand it and would he be able to repeat it to me? We're talking about alterations the overall financial impact of which would amount to several hundred million dollars, but since there is no alteration on the cuts as a whole, on the reform as a whole, I would like to know why we are obliged to await royal assent to pass these amendments, while in the case of other amendments that have a financial impact, we do not wait.
I would understand the need for royal assent if there were an overall alteration in the reform, but this is not the case. Can you respond to me? I am not obstructing, I want to understand. Can you explain to me?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I'll let Ms Smith answer this. I've tried, and maybe my way of explaining it isn't getting through. We'll let Ms Smith give it a shot and see what happens.
.1445
Ms Smith: The interpretation here is that the financial implications are analysed Clause-by-Clause. It's not whether or not a change to a subsequent Clause or some other Clause would offset the financial implications of that particular Clause, they're just analysed with respect to each individual Clause.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: So, we will have to classify the whole thing.
Mr. Crête: But we amended other Clauses that have a financial impact. In the batch we have, there are several of them. Why would we wait until the consideration of the report or some other stage in the House to adopt these? Why are you waiting for some Clauses and not others? Because you want to make a show in the House on the 300 million dollars? It's a political question.
On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary has not answered my question and nothing has been explained.
[English]
The Chairman: Order. That's a political question.
Let's cool the temperature a little bit. We're going to get all the answers. If you don't get your answers here, you'll get them in the House. The debate is quite open.
Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, the answer is very obvious. Your government has an agenda, and if we want to put amendments at report stage based on the advice we've been given by our officials, professional public servants in whom we have a lot of faith, then that's what we'll do.
I don't think I need a lecture by Mr. Crête whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. We're going by advice we've received from our officials. Quite frankly, it's very sound advice. That's why it's not here. I don't have to show him those amendments because he certainly hasn't shown me his. Where are they? We're getting them on the fly. So I don't think we need to explain it any further than that.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, very briefly. Do you have a point?
Mr. Easter: No, it's a question to officials when that time comes. Let's get on with this debate.
The Chairman: The debate is over as far as I am concerned. I think all the points have been dropped.
Mr. Easter: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The debate is not over, because I have not had an answer to my question.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I answered it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: He thinks he gave me an answer, but in my opinion there was no reply. We can leave this question aside for the time being.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, but as chair I'm going to tell you something. That's about as good as it's going to get for the question and for the answer. So as far as I'm concerned, unless you want to challenge me, and you are free to do that, this debate is over.
Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I think I missed something. You said there were some amendments, the three amendments of the members?
Mr. Crête: We're going to discuss them in the next stage of the debate.
Mrs. Lalonde: But is there a fourth one, since you announced there was something concerning maternity leaves?
[English]
Mr. Nault: There may be more than that. That's the point I'm making to you.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I have a question. As for the first three amendments, some provisions were taken either to penalize cheaters or to accelerate the return to employment. We were given a document.
I think my understanding was that the cost of the three amendments by our colleagues was assessed at 365 million dollars. Consequently, since the Minister undertook to stay within the financial parameters, the 365 million dollars will be taken in part from what is withdrawn from the cheaters, and in part - and this is what is said in the document that we had - from what is withdrawn from the acceleration of the return to work. Is that it?
So, my question is whether, in respect of the other amendments that will be presented in the House, it will also be necessary to identify the origin of the money that will be used to make some improvements in the bill.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that a question for the officials or is that for Mr. Nault?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: They don't know and you don't know either? Is that it?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
.1450
Mr. Nault: The point is that the explanation given the other day by the officials of where we are making up the difference has been handed out to the opposition. Some of the amendments we will be making at report stage relate to the issue of fraud and/or the penalties. No argument there, that's true. But there is, as we have just tabled under Clause 7.1, some of it in the bill already, as amendments. There are going to be others.
My point is that I don't ask the opposition which amendments they're going to make at report stage. I can't, quite frankly, accept them asking me to give them all the numbers now. If I want to put some at report stage, that's up to us.
We did give them an explanation the other day with the hand-out Mr. Crête is waving around there. I assume that's the one. That was the explanation. Of course the officials gave the explanation and then there were questions about it the other night when I so inadvertently talked about Madam Lalonde's age and she was offended about it. Do you remember? That's when we had that discussion in a roundabout way, and then we followed it up with this one as well, which we did at the very beginning of the supposed Clause-by-Clause before the filibuster.
So that's the explanation. Is there some other question that I missed in there?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I heard what you said. However, I am resisting the temptation to speak to you in English.
[English]
Mr. Nault: The translation is getting better. Don't worry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I don't mean to say that the translation is not well done, on the contrary, butI would like to ask you if you are going to add other amendments to these new amendments. I am not opposed and I think that the more there are, the better it will be, insofar as the amendments that you are going to present will provide an explanation of the origin of the money that is to be used to establish them.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, the minister has already answered that. I'm assuming, quite franky, that when the minister makes his speech in the House, he will explain it again. The press have asked the minister - and I'm sure the opposition knows this - where we are going to get the money for the amendments of the three members. He has explained that in detail. That's the answer. If there happen to be other amendments that relate to more money, then the minister will explain that as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I have had the answer to my question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Maybe it's the translation. It was a civilized question, and I appreciate it.
The Chairman: Are we ready to deal with the amendment? Mr. Easter, you have a question.
Mr. Easter: I figured you had me on your list a long time ago, Mr. Chairman. It was quite a while ago.
One of the difficulties, Mr. Chairman, for members on this side is that we've been so successful in terms of getting some amendments that they can't put them forward here due to their spending money. But I certainly congratulate the three members for that.
My question really relates to Sub-Clause 14(5). I won't read it. What procedure would be followed in terms of the minister moving the maximum number of weeks up to 22? As I understand it, under the amendment that is yet to come forward by Mr. Regan on divisor, the timeframe set would be the regional employment rate plus two.
What I'm worried about is if at some time, under perhaps some future government, that divisor could be moved up from plus two to a maximum of 22 without coming back to Parliament.
Ms Smith: The procedure is laid out in the subsequent paragraphs of this Clause, and it includes that the minister would table a regulation before the House of Commons. Then there are quite a number of Clauses, going from Clauses 6 through 12, that describe the procedure in the House that would be followed in that circumstance.
.1455
Mr. Easter: I'd just like to be clear. If five years hence we have in the bill, hopefully when we get to the report stage, the Regan amendment - regional rate plus two - the minister could by executive council, by Governor in Council, extend that to 22, so that say we're in a regional eligibility rate of 12 now, divisor of 14, the minister could move it up to 22. Is that right?
Ms Smith: Yes, through regulation and subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. I'd also perhaps bring your attention to the second half of Sub-Clause 14(5), where it says it would be:
- ``if the Minister is satisfied on the basis of the report under section 3, that individuals,
communities and the economy have adequately adjusted to the changes mentioned in that
section.''
What protection other than the latter part of Sub-Clause 14(5) does the public have from the minister doing that inadvertently? A right-wing government moves into place and just does it, ups it to 22. What protection does the public have from that?
Ms Smith: It would be the parliamentary procedures that are laid out in Sub-Clauses 14(6) to 14(12).
Mr. Easter: You know how easily that's done.
We'll sit on it for the moment. We'll think about it by report stage.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
We're now ready to deal with the amendments. Shall the amendment carry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: In this connection, even if there was an amendment, it must be said that we still find this very restrictive and penalizing. In our opinion, this rigidity that has been introduced will be maintained and I do not think the government has clearly analyzed, here again, the effects of this provision.
I understand the effort that has been made, and even though there has been some improvement over the first measure, the measure itself was unacceptable in the first place and this improvement is nothing but a step back in relation to a situation that, in our opinion, was fairer.
[English]
The Chairman: So shall the amendment carry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I request a recorded vote, please. Can this be done with dissent?
[English]
The Chairman: On division, okay.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 15 - Reduction for claimants who previously received regular benefits
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We're at 15.
Mr. Crête: We've come to 15. It is not yet accepted. And there are some amendments in the list.
[English]
The Chairman: We're now doing 15.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 15 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 21 and substituting the following:
- ``claimant was paid more than 20 weeks of regular benefits.''
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This is a major Clause in the bill. This is the reason why 5,000 people met in Rivière-du-Loup a few days ago. There was also a very strong protest in the Maritimes. This, in my opinion, is the most infamous Clause in the Act, in the sense that it recognizes, in practical terms, the principle that seasonal workers who use unemployment insurance regularly are considered to do so in bad faith and they are made responsible for the state of the economies in the regions. I think, therefore, that the government should withdraw this Clause.
.1500
The penalty could easily be eliminated, given the present surplus state of the unemployment insurance fund. It is said, in effect, that whenever you use unemployment insurance for 20 weeks or more, there will be a 1 percent decrease in the amount of the benefits. This means, therefore, that after three years a seasonal worker will only get 50 percent of the amount of his benefit, although he will have paid the same premiums as the others. In this way, you decide that a person who works in seasonal industries has less right to obtain unemployment insurance benefits than others.
However, it is a change that is not accompanied by any adequate measure to correct the reality of seasonal industry. I think that people will assess the reform for what it is worth. I also think that all the members from ridings in which seasonal industry is a major factor will have a lot of difficulties explaining to their constituents how they could agree to such a measure.
This is a Clause that is going to have definite consequences on people's quality of life. In Rivière-du-Loup a girl came and explained that her spouse and her brother committed suicide last year as a result of an employment problem. This is a Clause that creates two levels of citizens in Canada. It is a measure that will not of course affect full-time employees, who have permanent work and job security, but rather the people who work in the peat, because peat cannot be gathered in winter, or the people who work in the forests, because you can't work in two feet of snow in the winter. The assumption, then, is that those people, because you are taking away 1 percent of their benefits, will more readily find a job during the winter, as if they had chosen not to work. I should say that it has been demonstrated to us, in the committee, particularly by the people from Gaspé Peninsula, that there is a large number of people who show up whenever a job becomes available: there might be 25, 30, 40, 50, 75 or 100 people applying for the same job.
This proposal is one of the least acceptable ones in this program. I would also like to hear some explanation of how you can make such a decision and at the same time generate some surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund.
Let's remember the expert who told us that the unemployment insurance program was the best program to regularize the economy in time of recession. The effect of this provision will be reduce this regulating effect, and we will be faced with much greater disparities and a situation that I consider completely unacceptable.
This is what I wanted to say in this connection. I am not grandstanding and I am not trying to stretch out my speaking time. I just wanted to say that I think this Clause in the legislation is very inhuman.
The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to add that although the seasonal workers could readily understand the effect of this measure on their community, we should also think about the cyclical unemployed in these regions and all those people who for the first time lose a stable job and will find themselves unemployed.
.1505
You ought to have some statistics on the incidence of frequent resort to unemployment insurance by persons who have worked in a large business for 10 years, for example, who lose their job and became unemployed.
I have known many people who had the experience of an initial shutdown of a business and who, with luck, found work in some other large business only to experience a second shutdown.I have known some who experienced a third shutdown and often they could no longer find anything but ``McJobs''.
I would like to point out to you that we are witnessing a structural change in the labour market and that the intent is to make individuals bear the burden of this change. It is an absolutely vicious measure, because it penalizes further the person who is experiencing the change and suffering from it.
I would therefore like to say, and to repeat, that it is these kinds of cutbacks that are financing the gifts being made to big businesses. It is indecent, in my opinion, and even hateful. It is senseless. Once again, we are experiencing a labour market that is undergoing a transformation.
It is the same thing for the young people. Most young people work on projects, including projects established by the employment centre. They work there for a number of weeks and they try to obtain a permanent job, but you know how difficult that is. They then wait for the next year, to be able to work on some other project.
I look forward to seeing the new rules you are going to be issuing. There are some implicit rules that say that a person cannot obtain more than three projects. But someone with three projects will in all likelihood find himself dependent if it entitles him to unemployment insurance. And that person will also be penalized, naturally.
I would like to repeat once again that we must think concretely about the people who are going to experience this reform. It makes no sense, since this reform will have the effect of reducing the maximum benefit and the percentage. It is also clear that the 55 percent rate will tend to decline when we see the number of people who are going to be affected over the years.
I have three children, including a daughter who is a doctor who, I think, will have no problem. But even if you have a child who is a lawyer, and it depends on the location, there is no certainty that he will not experience some repeated periods of unemployment. It makes no sense. I don't understand, because there is nothing in this bill that concerns the new labour market.
Once again, it seems to me that this bill punishes rather than assists, because the people who are in this kind of situation need a hand rather than a kick in the behind. I don't know how that translates into English. You tell me later. In any event, it is the opposite of common sense.
I hope, therefore, that we are going to have a surprise in the House. However, I don't know when it will be presented. Do you know? Are you going to come back to the House tomorrow with it?
I would like to know, because I am leaving for my riding, as usual.
[English]
The Chairman: I believe that we'll report the bill on Monday to the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But that really doesn't make any sense. In any event, would it really be dissuasive? It is simply punitive. Personally, I have known a lot of people repeatedly getting unemployment insurance benefits and I can tell you that no one got any pleasure out of it.
There is no sense to this. Excluding people who would receive maternity benefits is certainly not sufficient. It is not acceptable to anyone.
.1510
We are frustrated, but no matter. We are going to have a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. Madam Augustine.
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, you know in this committee thatI don't speak for the sake of speaking, but I do want to express the same concerns that my colleagues across the way are expressing. I'm sure everyone on this committee and everyone who has been following the procedures know we have some amendments. Those amendments have been costed out and have been accepted by the minister and we hope to see those changes brought forward.
I've worked really very hard to ensure that the minister understands the situation and I think, Madam Lalonde, that we'll be pleased to see what could be considered a punitive part of the bill. We'll see some remedies. So I'm very hopeful that you've seen the amendments and you've seen the direction in which we hope the amendments would go. The minister has given some assurances in that direction. It has been costed out.
Mr. Chairman, I too am looking forward to seeing the punitive nature, because this bill is really intended to address the issue of fairness and people facing hardships. I think you'll see the intentof the measures in here. I hope we are all going to be pleased with the minister's response.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Augustine.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: If Ms Augustine's amendment is not reported with the three amendments ofher colleagues, this does not mean it was not accepted.
[English]
The Chairman: I didn't get the translation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I say that because we read in the newspaper this morning that the Minister had said there were no further amendments apart from those three. That's what was said in all the French-language papers.
A voice: So the fourth is dead.
Mrs. Lalonde: So we thought there would not be any others. But Mr. Nault said just now that there would be others and Ms Augustine is still hoping because her amendment was not reported back with the three others. One might have thought it had not been accepted.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
[English]
Mr. Nault: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I haven't read the French version of whatever the minister said. I don't intend to go by what the media normally writes. Since I've been a politician for the last eight years I've noticed on occasion I've been misquoted. So I'm not sure whether in factI would just take the media's word for it in the French press. Maybe the minister meant he wasn't going to accept any more amendments than the ones he's already approved. I don't know.
I don't really know what she's talking about in that respect, but there are going to be amendments at report stage, and that's pretty obvious because we've signalled this. The major amendments we're talking about, the ones that need royal recommendation of the members themselves, who have been talking about it for months and months...the minister has obviously signalled that he's in approval of those changes and has explained how we're going to be paying for those changes.
I will just leave it at that, because that's as far as it's going to go. I think the quote the member's referring to over and over may be a misquote. That does happen.
The Chairman: Is it on the same point?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to read to you what was said in the French-language press, and the translator will give you the precise meaning:
- ``Human Resources Development Minister Douglas Young explained yesterday that the three
proposed amendments presented by Liberal backbenchers had been accepted and that there will
be no further changes.''
Mr. Crête: To fill in, we understood that the second amendment -
.1515
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I understand the concerns that Madam Lalonde cited. I think we had a response from Mr. Nault. I'd rather be dealing with the substance of this particular amendment, not the press, because I don't think I came here to read the newspaper, but rather to get this Clause-by-Clause done.
Go ahead, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would simply like to say that this is a Clause that will penalize the people who regularly use unemployment insurance.
According to my understanding, Ms Augustine's second amendment would allow the accumulation of a weeks-based credit, which would exempt some people from being penalized, since they wouldn't arrive so soon at the 21st or 41st week.
It is this amendment that got lost in the boondocks. I am not asking the secretary to give me an answer, but I would like to raise this question. It seems that this Clause does not require royal assent, unless I am mistaken. And is there a financial impact? I don't know.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, we have assessed that Clause, which is the second part ofMs Augustine's amendment. Yes, the assumption is that it will cost money, because it will be exempt from the intensity rule when they get the credit. So that is obviously going to be put at report stage.
Mr. Chairman, let me put this debate to rest. I understand the interest of the opposition of finding out political information as to how good is the good news story going to be at report stage when we put those amendments. I would be asking the same thing, because it's going to be very difficult for the opposition to spin their doom and gloom story if it's too good a news story when we get into the House.
For the sake of argument, I don't think we're going to answer those questions any more. They're best put to the minister. We already indicated that there are certain amendments that need royal recommendation and they cannot be put in this committee. I think that's a fair answer to the question. For Mr. Crête to continue to quiz me as in question period - and it's not that I don't enjoy the practice - I just don't think it's appropriate for me to answer those questions because it's of a political nature and the minister should answer.
The Chairman: Is it absolutely necessary for another question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to speak to the Clause and this does not necessarily refer to your speech.
[English]
The Chairman: This political ping-pong...I enjoy watching it. I love ping-pong as a sport, but this same point has been repeated and repeated.
You're all seasoned politicians. You know that at report stage there are probably going to be amendments from both sides. So why don't we leave it at that and stick to the Clause-by-Clause issue of the day, which is this one here right now?
Mr. Crête, is it on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, it is on Clause 15. I think you may want to amend it so it has less effect one way or another, but it is on the very principle of this Clause that it is important to take a position.
I have not heard much serious commentary on the actual effect of the provision. I wonder what proportion of the population will actually change its behaviour because of this measure.
This situation, in itself, is pretty dreadful. But if you look at people as economic machines, the1 percent reduction will surely not result in getting people to move to regions where there are more jobs. Nor will it have the effect of creating more jobs; rather, it will send less money to the regions.
In a riding such as mine, the issue of the seasonal workers and the cutbacks in the reform as a whole will result in a decrease of 10 million dollars. And there will also be 20 million dollars in the Lower St. Lawrence region. And that money, which will not be spent in the region, will have a rather negative economic effect, since there will be no additional available weeks of employment but rather fewer weeks.
.1520
I would therefore like to know what assessment you have made of the actual economic impact that this will have on the increase in employment. I think you are saying that by penalizing those workers, they are going to work longer or find some other job. Are there some evaluations to indicate how many thousands of workers will be looking for additional jobs, in accordance with Clause 3 which states that we will be observing ``how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting to the changes''?
Can you tell us today what is the objective that is being pursued? If, in one or two years, you want to be able to tell us whether or not the objective was achieved, it will be necessary to know the figures that exist today. How can you say that in one year, fewer persons in the Maritimes will have used unemployment insurance because of that Clause? Are there some evaluations on which you can rely?
[English]
Ms Karen Jackson (Acting Director General, Labour Market Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): We have a variety of estimates of different elements of what this Clause will mean. There are a couple of things.
What we know about what it will do to people's average benefits is that we can estimate that for the population who would see their benefits fall from 55% to 50% - that's after collecting 100 weeks of benefits - we know that their average weekly cheques would fall by about $25. We also know that the maximum any weekly cheque would fall after collecting the full penalty of the intensity rule would be $37.50. That's part of the answer.
In response to the other part of your question about what we can tell you about behavioural change, I do think that we have in the past months tabled a variety of evaluation studies with the committee for their consideration. One in particular goes back a number of years and looked at what happened to people and how they changed their behaviour in the past when rules were changed around entrance requirements to the program. We know that about 50% of claimants were indeed able to find additional work so that they could continue to qualify for benefits.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Last year, the report of the committee on seasonal work formed by the Minister, which had been asked to evaluate all of these situations, did not provide us with any conclusion. It was not a committee of the House, but a committee formed by the Minister. All the members had been appointed by the Minister. He had selected each member whose competence he was acquainted with, and the committee made some very clear recommendations to the effect that there was no relationship between the fact that people were using unemployment insurance and the fact that they were using it repeatedly. In fact, people were not using it more because there were no more jobs, in the last analysis.
It seems to me rather absurd, therefore, that you have not taken any account of this result, or of the result of the whole tour by the committee across Canada two years ago, when there were some obvious demonstrations of this black and white fact.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, your intervention has gone on to speak about the general Clause. You're not speaking to the amendment as specifically as you should be, so I might have to cut you off there.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: May I come back to the amendment and speak to it?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, you can, but I would have to question you on that because you're speaking about the Clause in general terms. Now you're going back to the specific amendment, andI have to question a bit of that because we need to do this work.
.1525
Can we kind of stick to the fact that we have to be more specific in speaking to the actual amendment rather than going all over the place? For this time I'll let it go; next time I'll just interject and that will be the end of that debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back to the amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, and without repeating the same thing you already talked about.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I haven't even begun to speak. You should at least give me time to begin speaking before saying I am repeating myself. Since this is a Clause that I have some difficulty in accepting,I may in fact want to examine it in detail.
It is proposed that we substitute at line 1 the following:
- ``claimant was paid regular benefits in regard to''
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, so are you ready for the vote on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Me, yes.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall Clause 15 as amended carry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: A recorded vote, please.
The Chairman: Very well.
[English]
Ms Augustine: I place my faith in the minister.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault will report that.
Clause 15 as amended agreed to: Yeas 7; Nays 2
On Clause 16 - Rate increase - family supplement
The Chairman: Any discussion on Clause 16? Seeing no discussion -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I raised my hand. You must look at me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crête: From time to time.
[English]
The Chairman: My peripheral vision must be going.
Mrs. Lalonde: I take that admission.
The Chairman: Okay, Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde: If you want us to leave, please say it.
The Chairman: No, I want you to stay. I get lonely real fast.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We cannot let this Clause go without referring to the remarks of a number of witnesses who came particularly from Quebec to tell us that this Clause transforms a system of insurance into a system of assistance.
It has nothing to do with a refusal to help friends in need, but concerns the necessity to assist all families in need, not only those with access to unemployment insurance.
That is why we prefer, by a long shot, a policy such as the policy that was advocated by the commission on social assistance that met in Quebec and that wants to withdraw - in Quebec we are taking exactly the opposite approach - from social assistance those provisions that added some money for children, so that all children in all families will be entitled to an allowance, and not only the families that are on social assistance or unemployment insurance.
.1530
Obviously, this is something that should be discussed. Although some people support this proposal, we think, for all sorts of reasons, reasons of equity, reasons that have to do with the insurance nature of this system, which must be maintained, that it is a poor choice to proceed in this way.
I would add that, compared with the provision that was in C-17, it is a provision that will affect and treat differently women whose income is often less than that of men and, since we take into account the criterion of family income, the spouse with the lowest income will be treated unfairly.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Lalonde. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I can't just leave that on the record without some comment simply because some 188,000 single-parent families, which are 99% women, are going to benefit from the particular change we're implementing here with the supplement. To suggest we're targeting women when in fact... Well, she's partially correct, she's got it in the reverse.
What we are doing is targeting women and families who need our help. I think it's important to put that on the record because it's just the absolute reverse to what the member said. To make that comment is not, in my mind, factually correct. I want to correct the record at least from the government's perspective.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. Madam Lalonde, thank you for extending your hand.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Can someone lend me a hand so I can wave to you?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say as well, so it is reflected in the ``blues'', that the positionI hold is the position that was taken not only by the Fédération des femmes du Québec, but also by all the women's groups that came from Quebec, as well as many women's groups in Canada outside Quebec who share our point of view. I would like that to be quite clear.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think now we've heard from both sides.
Clause 16 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Am I to assume that everything is on division here?
Mrs. Lalonde: Oui.
The Chairman: Okay.
On Clause 17 - Maximum rate of weekly benefits
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 17? I will give you some time.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: In Bill C-31, there is a reference in fact to components of Clause 17. Is it usual to see some provisions in two distinct bills?
[English]
The Chairman: We'll get the officials to answer.
Ms Smith: Bill C-31 deals with 1996. This bill deals with 1997 to the year 2000.
The Chairman: I think that's a succinct answer.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: May I ask another question on this, Mr. Chairman?
This means that in the transitional provisions, you are going to have the Unemployment Insurance Act continue until 1997? Bill C-31 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the Unemployment Insurance Act becomes obsolete, then there will be no provisions to cover the maximum rate of weekly benefits.
.1535
I might add a slightly caustic comment. We will be told in any event - how did you put it earlier? - that it is conventional; although there is no legislation, you do what you want. Isn't it our role, as parliamentarians, to try to ensure that the laws give the government a mandate to act?
[English]
Ms Smith: Yes, there are transitional provisions in schedule II. In addition, there is a motion that would introduce a new Clause that would allow for the eventuality. So we've got all eventualities covered as to which act is passed before which one so that there is continuity.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Lalonde.
Shall Clause 17 carry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I request, please, a recorded vote.
[English]
Clause 17 agreed to: Yeas 5; Nays 3
Clause 18 agreed to on division
On Clause 19 - Earnings in waiting period
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 19 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 32-35 on page 22 and lines 1-5 on page 23 and substituting the following, with the marginal note ``Undeclared earnings'':
(3) If the claimant has failed to declare all or some of their earnings to the Commission for a period, determined under the regulations, for which benefits were claimed,
(a) the following amount shall be deducted from the benefits paid to the claimant for that period:
(i) the amount of the undeclared earnings, if, in the opinion of the Commission, the claimant knowingly failed to declare the earnings, or
(ii) in any other case, the amount of the undeclared earnings less the difference between
(A) all the amounts determined under paragraph 2(a) or (b) for the period, and
(B) all amounts that were applied under those paragraphs in respect of the declared earnings for the period; and
(b) the deduction shall be made
(i) from the benefits paid for a number of weeks that begins with''
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Is this provision ``strengthened'' because you thought the one that existed previously was not sufficient? Or is it to make more money?
.1540
[English]
Ms Smith: The amendment is there in order to clarify the language with respect to what was printed in the original bill. So between this amendment and the original bill it is simply an amendment that makes the calculations much clearer.
The Chairman: Okay. I see no further questions.
Amendment agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Is it a new deduction? In the bill, there was nevertheless an increase in the penalties.
[English]
Ms Smith: Yes. In the proposition that's in the bill an individual who has not declared his earnings while on claim would no longer be eligible to receive the 25% allowable. In addition, the methodology by which those earnings, once they have been detected through our investigation system, would be allocated against their benefits in a simpler fashion makes it much easier to administer this section of the act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Hold on, just one second. We're going to have to come up with an agreement because this has come up a couple of times. Once the amendment was approved, as you know, on division, you asked a question. It's the second time that has occurred. I'd like to give a little flexibility, but once we've dealt with the amendment and it's voted on, I can't go back to it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But can't I still ask a question about the Clause? Does voting on an amendment mean that you dispose of the amended Clause?
[English]
The Chairman: The amendment is passed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but the amendment does not dispose of the Clause.
[English]
The Chairman: In any case, I was going to go on. Is there any discussion on the Clause? If that's what you're doing, go ahead, you have one more question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Am I entitled to ask a question on the Clause as amended?
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, yes, absolutely.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Well, that's what I am doing because the Clause -
[English]
The Chairman: As long as we know the amendment has been carried on division.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, yes, very well. So, take notice -
Here is my question. It means that in most cases, as your investigation services are not always so rapid, the claims might be made when you are already engaged in a process or several benefits have already been paid out.
[English]
Ms Smith: We are able to investigate claims up to six years after the fact. The majority of the investigations would pertain to claims that are relatively recent, within the last year or two.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: So, the only result will be to increase the amount of the claims you are going to be making. This will not be dissuasive.
This is important because it is the intention that I have questioned. If it was intended to be dissuasive, the effect should occur before the fact. Basically, the action we're discussing will occur after the fact and someone might agree to take a chance, telling himself that in a year he may be in a position to repay, or something else of that nature.
[English]
Ms Smith: Or maybe in a year they won't fine me. The objective of this Clause is to encourage claimants to declare their earnings properly while they are on claim so that this penalty would not apply to them at any time in the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: It is still understood that people can challenge.
[English]
Ms Smith: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you.
[English]
Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 20 agreed to on division
.1545
Clause 21 agreed to on division
On Clause 22 - Pregnancy
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 22?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We read here:
``22. (1) Notwithstanding section 18, but subject to this section, benefits are payable to a major attachment claimant who proves her pregnancy.''
Does this mean that the employee must have accumulated 700 hours, within the same year?
Mr. McFee: In the year preceding the beginning of the benefit period, which precedes the claim for benefit. That is correct. It is normally the year prior to the claim.
Mrs. Lalonde: That is appalling.
Mr. McFee: There is nothing new there -
Mrs. Lalonde: But yes. Previously, it was 12 weeks of 15 hours.
Mr. McFee: - except that we have converted the calculation into hours.
Mr. Crête: It is much more than a conversion.
Mrs. Lalonde: The period is more than doubled. That's what you mean. Does it end up more than doubling?
[English]
Mr. Nault: It has always been 20 weeks, not 12 weeks. You can't get special benefits at 12 weeks; you need 20 weeks. Now we're going to 700 hours, which is still 20 weeks.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Twenty times 15 -
Mr. Crête: Twenty times 15 is 300.
[English]
Mr. Nault: You're talking about the minimum requirement now.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No. It was indeed 20 weeks.
[English]
Mr. Nault: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: And each insurable week was 15 hours. A 15-hour week was insurable. So, someone who had worked 20 weeks of 15 hours qualified, while from now on it is not a total of 300 hours that will be required but a total of 700 hours. There appears to be some difference.
Mrs. Lalonde: The period is therefore more than doubled. That is what we are saying.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I could give them a list of the people that would affect on one sheet, it's that small, simply because it's less than 2%. Then you have got to factor in the individuals they're talking about who only make 15 hours, which is the worst case scenario they keeping talking about, when we know almost 80% of all recipients work over 30 hours on average a week when they get their claims. They're talking about such a small amount of the population. They make it sound like there are thousands of people out there going to be affected by this Clause.
If I get a chance, I'll give them a list of all the people who would be affected, probably on one hand, but I can't do it because of access to information or freedom to information.
The Chairman: All three or do you want maybe...?
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I have a question. I put it. Many pregnant women have told me that at present it takes two months to get the unemployment insurance benefit. They had to wait two months, after quitting work, before getting something.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: That doesn't seem right to me.
Let's imagine a woman, the head of a single-parent family. She has no husband or he is not there. For two months, during a time that is very important in the nourishment of the baby-to-be, she is in a very difficult financial situation.
Mrs. Lalonde: She gets an abortion.
Mr. Dubé: Would there be some means - I don't know if it is through this Clause - to change the situation so that it is - It seems to me that when someone has proved her pregnancy - Anyway, it is obvious at a certain point. I am still asking myself what the meaning is of the words ``proves her pregnancy''. How is this done? By a doctor's certificate, surely.
What concerns me is the delay. Is it true that it takes two months from the claim for benefit in such cases?
Mr. McFee: No, that is not accurate in every case. From time to time, some delays do occur in the process. But according to our performance evaluation parameters, the first payment, when the person qualifies, must be made within the final days of the month following the claim. The majority of claims are processed in this way.
.1550
I should add that anyone who files a claim for benefit must already expect a two-week waiting period. Furthermore, the only proof required in the case of pregnancy is a certificate from a doctor or some other authorized person attesting that the individual is pregnant. So, usually, the payments are made within 21 days.
Mr. Dubé: Working days?
Mr. McFee: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: That is one month, plus two weeks, which equals six weeks.
Mr. McFee: One month, two weeks of which are not paid initially. This waiting period applies to everyone. So, in that sense, the count must begin at the third week, to prove eligibility.
Mr. Dubé: Insofar as I am concerned, I will limit myself to observing that this situation does not constitute a great encouragement to having children.
Mr. Crête: I would like to have, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, an explanation concerning the effect of the legislation. He says this concerns 2 percent of individuals. This is 2 percent of what population? Is it 2 percent of the women who are entitled to maternity leaves who are affected by the fact they do not qualify after working 15 hours a week?
It is that. Thank you.
Mrs. Lalonde: Listen, I have heard strong criticism of these statistics, not only by the Fédération des femmes du Québec but by several other women's groups. I don't know whether the parliamentary secretary was there. To ensure you are aware of them, we are going to have a copy of these briefs distributed. It is obvious that for all women who work between 15 and 35 hours a week, the new limitations are major and will make them even less eligible.
I think it is extremely sad that we are penalizing in this way the women who want to have children. As my colleague suggested, they may, in such conditions, be led to make decisions that they would prefer not to make.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I respect the view of the member that she heard it from the witnesses and the witnesses refute the experts in the department who have made the analysis of the effects of the bill. I respect that she can make that statement. I don't have to agree with it because I totally disagree with it.
As I said before, I find it insulting because every time there is an assessment done - which they ask for on a regular basis and I don't know why they ask for it - if they don't like what they hear, they disagree and they say they'll refute that because somehow they got the information from somebody else.
The point is, those are the numbers from 1995, so, quite frankly, I don't know why they have said that.
I want to give you one statistic that I think is very important as it relates to the people who collect maternity leave. When applying for these benefits on average, women of course work when they collect under UI. In 1995 on average of the individuals who collected, men have usually 35 hours a week and the women have fewer of course, 30 hours a week.
That's why there's such a minimal impact. When you look at the large numbers of people who work regular numbers of hours, the full amount of a week, then all of a sudden we're talking about a very small segment of the unemployed population. Of course, when applying for maternity benefits, on average they have worked 45 weeks before they apply for maternity benefits.
The argument that's being made, Mr. Chairman, by the opposition is that there must be these millions of people out there who work 15 hours and that's it. Well, the vast majority of women are like the women on this committee who were here today. They work full time. There's a very small part of the population that doesn't and then when they do go after maternity benefits, obviously they need to have under the old system 20 weeks before they even qualify. So that, quite frankly, is part of the case.
.1555
What happens then is that someone who... In essence, if 45 weeks is the average of an individual before she does try to make a claim for maternity leave, if on average she's worked at least 45 weeks, if you factor in 45 weeks times 15.6 hours per week, you get 700 hours. That's why there is such a small number of people on there, Mr. Chairman.
So the argument being made by the opposition is a very frivolous one. There is a small impact and we're not arguing that. But to make it sound like 90% of women are going to be out of the maternity leave special benefit package is not factually correct. I think it's unfortunate that argument has been made because we can prove that's not the case. I wanted to put that on the record.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Yes, I think there's another important point here that the opposition is ignoring as well, Mr. Chair - moving to the hours-based system.
It is well known that a lot of people fall into that 15-hour trap at the moment and don't qualify. A lot of those are women. It's certainly unknown how many are eligible for maternity leave. But the fact that now multiple job holders can be brought into the system under this legislation and may in essence have the hours as a result of that is, I think, a great credit to the legislation. I think we should recognize that.
The Chairman: Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to note first that the argument we have made was taken from the remarks of all the women's groups we heard from. If it is frivolous, it is all the women's groups who have made frivolous submissions. But I did not hear the parliamentary secretary, when these groups appeared, telling them that their submissions were frivolous and arguing that their case was not well prepared.
I would like to add that it was not necessary to adopt an hours-based calculation system in order to account for the work performed in two jobs. It should also be noted that for those who were working 15 hours, the difference is huge.
What you call the ``15 hour job trap'' is not, in my opinion, an acceptable argument either. You often said, following consideration of C-113, that the bill allowed someone who needed two weeks more to find them without difficulty. I think this argument automatically cancels out. I repeat, therefore, that I think it is regrettable that we are making it more difficult for pregnant women to qualify for benefits during their pregnancy.
I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are going to allow me to put the question immediately, but a professional woman in my riding told me that since the salary clawback will begin at $39,000, in her case, she will not want to take maternity leaves because... Isn't there an exception for pregnancy in the clawback?
[English]
Ms Smith: Only that the intensity levels of the clawback would not apply. The basic clawback provision does apply.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You understand that this can become a significant problem. It is rather awkward, for someone who is contemplating motherhood, to plan to have to pay back thousands of dollars once she returns to work. It means saving up a lot of money.