I would like us to keep the term ``organismes communautaires'' in here. These organizations are in regular contact with the unemployed - other members would surely agree with me there. Is there a technical reason for replacing ``services communautaires'' by the word ``collectivités''?
Mr. Kerr: It's so that the French version coincides with the English one. The concept of ``collectivités'' is much broader than what is covered by ``organismes communautaires''. The purpose of paragraph 60 (4) (b) is to allow communities to work together to develop adjustment plans and programs, not just to provide assistance to community organizations. So, the word ``collectivités'' is seen as being broader than ``organismes communautaires'' and less restrictive. Again, the purpose of this amendment is simply to correct a slight inconsistency between the English and French versions.
Mr. Dubé: I want to comment on that because that falls right into my own area. You may interpret those terms that way, but they could end up being restrictive. If we use the term ``communities'', and if there is no agreement or consensus within a given community, that could lead to delays. So, this wording could end up being restrictive.
I'm also bothered by the fact that the English version always seems to take precedence. The bill is drafted in English first, and then the drafters try to make sure the meaning is more or less equivalent in French. That's an argument I really don't buy. I don't mean to say you did it maliciously, of course. That was really just a general comment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: To clarify the comment, as Mr. Dubé must have been following throughout the evening there were many occasions where we adapted the English version to the French - just the reverse of what he's saying. So to suggest that we're adapting everything to the English text is not factually correct. We've done the reverse this evening, on a number of occasions.
The Chairman: Thanks for the clarification, but I think Mr. Dubé understood that.
Mr. Nault: No, he didn't.
Mr. Easter: It had to be cleared up.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, we are in fact dealing with a translation problem. From your perspective, the French term ``collectivités'' includes municipalities and community organizations. But based on our understanding of French, the term ``collectivités'' has a much broader meaning and can include the private sector, which in fact is already included under the term ``employer''.
But if we can agree on the meaning and include all of these elements, then I would certainly agree. I know that community organizations in our constituencies would not consider themselves to be covered by a word like ``collectivités''. The term ``groupes communautaires'' has a very special meaning, particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Dubé: As I understand it, our Liberal colleagues would agree to an amendment along the lines we have discussed, i.e. saying ``organismes communautaires et collectivités''. So we will be presenting that amendment.
Mr. Crête: Are we going to make an amendment?
Mr. Dubé: Yes.
Mr. Crête: It would actually be a sub-amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dubé: We can leave that until the end.
Mr. Crête: You can write it down on the same page.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you going to move an amendment, then?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: It's a subamendment. Are you going to read it?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We are writing it down right now. The amendment will involve adding ``groupes communautaires'' after the word ``collectivités'', which will remain. Both will therefore be considered to be part of the same decision.
[English]
The Chairman: I will reserve my decision and give you my thoughts on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Actually, the Clause itself will have to be stood.
[English]
The Chairman: It's quite, quite redundant, but that's okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: But there is no harm in it.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I agree that it might be redundant in English, but not in French.The important thing is that it reflect the same reality.
The Chairman: Do you think so?
Mr. Crête: I don't know that I can say I think it does, but that it is what this reflects.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in my colleagues' amendment to the amendment. Can they clarify what they have in mind? Are they going to use both words, then, to clarify it? Is that the intent?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We're just talking about using both terms: ``organismes communautaires'' and ``collectivités''.
.2005
The new wording would be: ``les employeurs, les associations d'employés ou d'employeurs, les organismes communautaires et les collectivités à développer''.
Mr. Dubé: There's no harm in it. In fact, it would be a lot better.
Mr. Crête: And members of Parliament will find it a lot clearer.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Okay. We'll look at it.
I'm just concerned that the members opposite might get themselves in trouble in Quebec if other people disagree with them.
Mr. Proud: I would doubt that.
Mr. Nault: Are they sure this is a good thing?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If our caucus colleagues are not happy, they'll say so.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I notice they didn't come tonight. So it's their own fault.
We'll look at it. It's what we call a friendly amendment.
The Chairman: All this will stand - right? The subamendment, the amendment, and the Clause? That's Clause 60 that we're dealing with.
Subamendment allowed to stand
Amendment allowed to stand
Clause 60 allowed to stand
On Clause 61 - Financial assistance
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 61?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is there no amendment on Clause 61?
[English]
The Chairman: No.
Clause 61 agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Can we have a couple of seconds to look at this Clause?
The Chairman: Is two seconds enough?
Mr. Crête: Okay. Perfect.
[English]
On Clause 62
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 62?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, I think we're going to have a lively discussion on this one.
An hon. member: This goes to the heart of the issue of negotiations with Quebec.
Mr. Crête: The Clause says:
``62. The Commission may, with the approval of the minister, enter into an agreement or arrangement for the administration of employment benefits or support measures on its behalf by a department, board or agency of the government of Canada, another government or government agency in Canada or any other public or private organization.''
If I understand correctly, this is the Clause that has led to the current imbroglio in Quebec, as a result of which educational systems can now offer training programs.
You also have organizations offering the same kind of training, thereby creating unnecessary competition between an existing educational system that works well, and organizations - more often than not, community organizations - that also provide training at a lower cost, something that often results in double the number of people being trained.
Let's take the example of training programs for professional cooks. There are vocational training centres in Quebec, including one in Rivière-du-Loup, that provide training programs for cooks and a variety of other vocational training programs, but in addition to that, through arrangements such as those referred to here, the federal government enters into contracts with organizations which then provide training programs in the same occupational field.
The field that has been the most affected by this problem is computer science. A great many computer technicians have been trained through both the regular education system, and by taking courses available from other organizations that are one-year, rather than three-year programs. I'm sure you can understand that a lot of people would find that attractive.
So, a one-year course is being offered through these programs, but people who decide to take the course are not always told that they will not receive an official certificate from the Ministry of Education. As a result, you often end up with 40 or 45 people seeking a single position in the labour market when you expected to have only 20 or 25.
So, fewer people are able to secure available jobs. In addition, money has been wasted as a result of this arrangement, because double the number of people have been trained.
It would be far preferable for these sorts of arrangements to be made co-operatively, so that the provinces' views could be sought on contracts to be awarded in its area of jurisdiction. The province should be in a position to say whether they see it as acceptable or not and whether it is likely to lead to duplication.
Those are some of the reservations we have about this Clause. We have not yet decided whether we will be presenting an amendment here in committee or at the report stage, once we have given this matter further consideration.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I can understand the member's concern. What he is relating to is the present system.
.2010
If I can bring him back to Sub-Clause 61(2) - which in the English text is just above Clause 62, which we're dealing with now - it relates to provincial agreements. Let me read it, because it relates exactly to what Mr. Crête is concerned about and should give him some comfort:
- ``The commission may not
- - I stress ``may not'' -
- provide any financial assistance in a province
- - ``in a province'' -
- in support of employment benefits mentioned in paragraph 59(e) without the agreement of the
government of the province.''
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm listening.
[English]
Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, may I jump in here? Clause 62 is essentially, as Mr. Nault was saying, an enabling Clause. It allows for the Government of Canada in the delivery of the benefits and measures that are laid out in part II to enter into an agreement on its behalf with a delivery vehicle or agency. In doing that, it will be very much guided by the guidelines contained in the legislation, which talk directly about harmonizing efforts to reduce overlap and duplication, trying to reduce dependency, maximizing effectiveness, bringing in evaluations, to ensure we get results.
I don't think the Clause itself is a confusing Clause. It's an enabling Clause within which the guidelines that lay out the legislation try to deal with a number of the concerns members have raised about overlap and duplication and making sure you do it as effectively as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In answer to the concerns expressed by the parliamentary secretary, Sub-Clause 61(2) that he referred to puts the provinces in the position of being dependant. Before people living in a province can benefit from funding under one of these programs, the government of that province must have signed an agreement. It has to do with the way the system currently operates. It's a bargaining tool.
Mr. Dubé: Just like for the entire question period this afternoon, to be nice -
Mr. Crête: What will be covered in the agreement between the province and the federal government? Will the federal government require that the province sign an agreement before people can take courses? That's the real issue.
Also, in current negotiations with Quebec, that kind of argument will certainly have to be made one way or another. I think you understand the kind of situations it can lead to. After the bill is in effect, six months or a year from now, we will find ourselves telling people who want to take a specific training program that they cannot be considered eligible because their province hasn't signed an agreement yet.
The province already has a comprehensive education system. Why would it want to sign an agreement with the federal government when it is already responsible for education? If the federal government decides it wants to put the money directly in the hands of citizens, it can choose to do so. We may or may not agree with that decision. But trying to link it to a forced agreement with the province is bound to create problems. Indeed, this whole arrangement creates a lot of problems, particularly in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it quite clear to the member that as he knows, there'll be a first ministers meeting in a number of months. I'm sure they'll deal with that. To suggest here that on the one hand the provinces, in particular the Province of Quebec, want the federal government to get out of provincial jurisdiction... We have said we will. But on the other hand, they want us to send them a blank cheque. I doubt very much any federal member, except of course the separatists, would accept that. You can't have it both ways.
There is going to be negotiation, and a decision will be made. But I can't preclude how the negotiations would go, and I don't think the member should either. You might be surprised how cooperative the federal government and the Province of Quebec can be when it comes to training and trying to get people back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm not at all surprised to hear a federal member say that the government intends to stay out of provincial areas of jurisdiction. That is perfectly normal. For Canada, decentralization is the way of the future. It's also a way of eliminating the kind of duplication that now exists. Some $250 million a year is wasted because of duplication between the two governments.
.2015
I'm not saying either the federal government or the provincial government are wasting money. Nor am I saying that all federal programs are bad and that provincial programs are good. I'm simply making the point that the two together have resulted in significant costs... This was recognized by a provincial Liberal minister, Mr. Bourbeau, when he was responsible for job training. He concluded that there was a substantial amount of money being wasted.
That a federal member should recognize that reality, one the federal government itself has already recognized in another area, namely ports policy... The federal government realized that by owning the ports and being responsible for their maintenance all across Canada, it had created an absolutely disastrous situation, and that a number of ports had fallen into severe disrepair. So it implemented a commercialization policy in order to restore responsibility for ports to the various regions of the country. A similar move could be made in the education sector. I think we could make significant progress in that area. Of course, people have every right not to share that view.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I would just like to make one point. Employment insurance or unemployment insurance under the Constitution is a federal jurisdiction, which means that the funds in that commission belong to the federal sphere.
If we're going to get into training, which belongs to the provincial jurisdiction, using federal funds, then obviously there will have to be some sort of negotiation. Part II of the bill we're dealing with tonight provides for that mechanism to negotiate. That was my main rationale for the comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has made an interesting comment. He is not saying it would be impossible to decentralize unemployment insurance funds. He is saying there have to be appropriate mechanisms. I want him to know I fully share that view.
Rather than negotiating on a piece-meal basis, program by program, we could easily reach an agreement between governments through which the federal authorities would transfer money to the government of Quebec on the condition that Quebec meet a certain number of conditions. One of those conditions might be an audit program to determine how the money had been spent, or some other similar initiative.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, you're stretching it a bit now.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I believe we're dealing directly with this Clause.
[English]
The Chairman: But I have a question for you. Shall Clause 62 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm still thinking about it. In any case, it would definitely be on division.
[English]
Clause 62 agreed to on division
On Clause 63 - Agreements for paying costs of similar benefits and measures
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There is an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, in the government list.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, there is, and I went to Mr. Nault for it. Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 63 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 8 to 13 on page 52 and substituting the following:
- ``of contributions for all or a portion of
(b) any administration costs that the government, government agency or organization incurs in providing the benefits or measures.''
The Chairman: Explanation, Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's what we were just talking about.
[English]
Mr. Nault: We just had that discussion, and I understand that Mr. Crête understands it very well.
Amendment agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We have no intention of agreeing to Clause 63. It will be passed on division.
[English]
Clause 63 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 64 - No appeal
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 64 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 52 and substituting the following:
- ``measures, other than a decision under section 65.1, is not subject to appeal under sec-''
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
.2020
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Here we need to be given not only an explanation but some justification for what is being proposed. A number of programs are affected here - for example, guideline 5 dealing with self-employment assistance. That kind of measure currently exists. If an individual comes forward with a project that is supported by a business plan, and a committee composed of an official and one other person, acting as an advisor... That committee's decision is not subject to appeal.
In my riding, there are two manpower centres. At one point, two people who knew one another presented... In one case, the only thing separating the people involved was a river. The person living on one side of the river presented his project to his manpower centre along with the appropriate business plan. In the other manpower centre, though, a similar project was not accepted. The two people involved knew each other and wondered why that had happened.
However, it was impossible to challenge the decision, because there was no appeal process.I think that raises a problem of equity. The two individuals I speak of were separated by nothing more than a river; yet one projet was considered appropriate while the other was not. There was not even an opportunity to register a protest. These decisions are not subject to appeal. That's it, that's all.
I may as well tell you that we intend to present something on this at report stage. It is indeed a very complex matter. But at the same time, we cannot accept the idea that a program intended to help people should be administered so unfairly.
Mr. Crête: I have a question of clarification.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to know what the difference is between the initial version, which contained no appeal process under Clause 114 or 115, and the amendment we are considering. Why did you change the wording?
[English]
Mr. Dixon: The change in this wording is in contemplation of an amendment you haven't dealt with yet. There'll be a 65.1, which is a -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, I see that; but we don't have 65.1 in our package, do we?
Mr. Nault: Yes, you do, in the small package.
Mr. Crête: But it doesn't say 65.1; it says 65.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, it's a little further down.
Mr. Crête: Okay, I've got it.
[English]
Mr. Nault: It's in the small one.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: So, we have to -
Mr. Dubé: He raised his hand and he got it. That's the way things work around here.
[English]
Mr. Proud: There is an amendment 65.1.
Mr. Green: The change is essentially to allow for an appeal where, under Clause 65, a financial penalty has been applied to the individual. But as my distinguished legal counsel colleague says, we're not at Clause 65 yet.
The Chairman: No, we're at Clause 64.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All right, but we have to be given an explanation now with respect to 65.1. I would agree to that.
[English]
The Chairman: Please go ahead. I'll reduce the time for the next one.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We have unanimous consent.
Mr. Crête: We have to have it in order to understand Clause 64.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: We could stand down this amendment, which is a small one, and go right to 65.We can deal with 65 and go back.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: He said he is going to stand that Clause and we will come back to it.
Mr. Crête: We will come back to it after looking at Clause 65? Right? Good.
Mr. Dubé: Good idea.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it understood what we're doing? We're standing Clause 64. We'll go to Clause 65 and come back to 64.
Amendment allowed to stand
Clause 64 allowed to stand
On Clause 65 - Liability for repayments
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the amendment to Clause 65 on page 52.
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to dispense? Okay, Mr. Nault, go ahead andread it.
[Translation]
An hon. member: No, it has to be read out so that we have a chance to try and understand it.
Mr. Crête: Unless you give us time to read it on our own. If you don't want to read it out loud, we can all read it ourselves.
Mr. Dubé: Just give us about 15 seconds.
Mr. Crête: That's the difference. If you give us the time to look at it now, we won't force the issue.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I'll read it, Mr. Chairman. I've been doing it all night. I don't mind.
.2025
I move that Clause 65 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out lines 18 on page 52 and substituting the following:
````Liability for repayments''
65. A person is liable to repay the fol-''
and (b) by striking out line 20 on page 52 and substituting the following:
``(a) principal and interest on a loan to the person;''
(c) by adding, immediately after line 24 on page 52, the following:
````Penalties''
65.1 (1) The Commission may impose on a person to whom financial assistance has been provided under section 61 a penalty for each of the following acts or omissions if the Commission becomes aware of facts that in its opinion establish that the person has
(a) in relation to an application or request for the assistance,
(i) made a representation that the person knew was false or misleading, or
(ii) made a declaration that the person knew was false or misleading because of the non-disclosure of facts; or
(b) without good cause failed to attend, carry out or complete the course, program or activity for which the assistance was provided or was expelled from it.
``Maximum penalty''
(2) The Commission may set the amount of the penalty for each act or omission at not more than the amount of the financial assistance that was provided.
``Limitation on imposition of penalties''
(3) The penalty shall not be imposed if
(a) a prosecution for the act or omission has been initiated against the person; or
(b) 36 months have passed since the day on which the act or omission occurred.
``Rescission, etc., of penalty''
(4) The Commission may rescind the imposition of the penalty, or reduce the penalty, on the presentation of new facts or on being satisfied that the penalty was imposed without knowledge of, or on the basis of a mistake as to, some material fact.''
(d) by striking out line 25 on page 52 and substituting the following:
````Debts due to the Crown''
65.2 (1) Amounts repayable under section 65 and penalties under section 65.1 are debts due to''
(e) by striking out line 30 on page 52 and substituting the following:
````Recovery by deduction''
(2) If an amount becomes payable to the''
(f) by adding, immediately after line 33 on page 52, the following:
````Limitation''
(3) No amount due under this section may be recovered more than 72 months after the day in which the liability arose.''
That's the extent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Explanation, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I think we'll go right to Mr. Green, since he was going to give us the explanation that relates to this.
The Chairman: Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: I'll defer to my colleague.
Mr. Kerr: New Clause 65.1 makes part II consistent with other parts of the bill by introducing the notion of penalties under part II. So where an individual is approved for an employment benefit and doesn't implement their plan for adjustment that's being supported through unemployment benefits in good faith, they're subject to similar penalties as under part I for not fulfilling their conditions of eligibility through unemployment insurance benefits.
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: That does not answer the objection I raised earlier. If someone wants to avail himself of a specific program, like the Self-Employment Assistance Program, and he is refused entry, he cannot appeal.
There is provision for penalties when a plan is accepted, but when it's rejected, to whom can a person appeal in order to challenge a decision? No one.
[English]
Mr. Dixon: Again, the reason for no appeal in a situation like this is that it's basically a policy matter. If an organization makes an application for funding and it's turned down for budgetary reasons, merit of the proposal or whatever, the policy rationale is that it's simply not appropriate to provide a recourse to a board of referees to second-guess the commission on decisions of that nature.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: A lot of liberties are being taken here. As I understand it, Clause 64 is intended to allow an appeal in specific circumstances set out under Clause 65.1. Clause 64 grants the right to appeal with respect to the content of Clause 65.
.2030
What Mr. Dubé is saying is that for the other programs, such as the Self-Employment Assistance Program, no appeal process is provided. The question is whether or not there should be one. The current mechanism is referral to a tripartite committee representing the department, the SADC (Société d'aide au développement des collectivités) and... Those are the three groups responsible for making the decision. But there is no possibility of appealing these decisions to another authority.
So, the question we have is this: other than the right of appeal relating to the content of Clause 65.1, there is no provision for an appeal process for other employment programs. Right? In any case, there certainly isn't for the Self-Employment Assistance Program. That is for sure.
Mr. Kerr: The reason why active measures are not subject to appeal, except in the case of penalties referred to in new Clause 65.1, is that active measures are seen as discretionary funds, whereas unemployment insurance or employment insurance benefits are something unemployed persons are entitled to if they're eligible. There is no budget for them. Premiums cover the cost of UI benefits.
However, active measures are funded only so long as there is money in the budget to pay for them. The decisions made are qualitative. Is an individual in need? Is his adjustment plan realistic and feasible? Is the organization that submitted the project capable of carrying it out? Is the project a valid one? A budget cap is set out in the legislation in Clause 78.
So, active measures are seen as discretionary funds that do not give rise to a right to appeal decisions in the same way UI benefits do, where there is indeed an appeal process and very extensive case law.
As far as the Self-Employment Assistance Program is concerned, the idea is to bring this kind of program under local control, rather than having it managed by bureaucrats or through regulations. It is up to the community to decide which unemployed persons deserve to benefit from it and which companies or business plans should be selected.
We decided that it would be better to put this kind of decision-making back into the hands of the community and its members, rather than to proceed by regulation.
Mr. Dubé: I want to make the point once again to my colleagues that in communities where there are companies or committees operating, it does happen that projects are subject to the sole authority of one official. I'm all in favour of decentralization. But if decentralization means living under the dictatorship of one official who can interpret things in his own way, then we'll be no further ahead. I'm raising this because this actually happens - indeed, we have received a lot of complaints about it.
I want you to be aware of this because we will be introducing an amendment - not tonight, because this is quite a complex issue - but at report stage. You can expect to receive one at that time. Small groups of us are calling on you to be open-minded when it comes time to look at them.
[English]
The Chairman: I think that all the points have been made. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 65 as amended agreed to
On Clause 64 - No appeal
The Chairman: Now we're dealing with the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. Regan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, one thing is not clear to me. You said ``Shall Clause 65 carry?'' And I know we said the amendment should carry. It should then be clear that Clause 65.1 is also carried, but I'm not sure that it is.
The Chairman: What do you mean?
Mr. Regan: Well, we've created a new Clause. By amending Clause 65, we've created Clause 65.1. We've carried Clause 65 but we've already created a new Clause 65.1. It's separate from Clause 65 and therefore should be carried separately, I suggest.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, 65.1 leads into 65.2 and 65.3, so in fact all of those are Clause 65. It's not the same as in some other Clauses where we had 7 and it was (1), (2), (3), (4), and then 7.1, which was separate. They were separate.
.2035
Mr. Regan: They're all separate Clauses, Mr. Chairman. They're not Sub-Clauses or they'd be in parentheses. You wouldn't have points, you'd have parentheses. There's a difference.
The Chairman: They are under parentheses.
Mr. Regan: It's 65(1), not 65.1. You didn't say point 1.
The Chairman: It's an amendment to 65. Anyway, this is the way we've been doing it all night.
We decided earlier that we'd go back to Clause 64.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 64 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 66-Annual premium rate setting
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Oh, no! We need to have some serious discussion on Clause 66.
[English]
The Chairman: But Clause 66 carried already.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, no.
The Chairman: Please proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, it's Clause 66 that should be amended based on the minister's suggestion to Mr. Martin.
Mr. Young was saying last week that there should be a limit and that premiums should go down, and here is the Clause where that could be contemplated.
On page 53, it says:
- ``...at a rate that the Commission considers will, to the extent possible,
(b) maintain relatively stable rate levels throughout the business cycle.''
I am surprised to see that government members are not moving an amendment here. Do the Liberals not intend to bring forward an amendment to this Clause, given what Mr. Young said about wanting premiums to go down?
[English]
The Chairman: There are no amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There is no Liberal amendment.
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Dubé: Can we ask the parliamentary secretary...
[English]
The Chairman: So we can move on now.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, Mr. Dubé would like -
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, of course.
Mr. Dubé: This is a promise the minister made when he met with us. I don't know what the occasion was, but I do know that's what he said. So, in order to help the minister do what he said he wanted to do, namely set a limit in the legislation - he talked about $5 billion, but he didn't seem sure about that figure - on the size of the surplus in the Employment Insurance Account so that -
[English]
Mr. Nault: What did you say? I'm sorry...
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: He mentioned it in committee when he met with us.
[English]
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): The minister didn't say a limit.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: And he said the same thing at press conferences.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: The minister said an exact number.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I guess government members have forgotten.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: I doubt it.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It has to appear somewhere.
Mr. Crête: Perhaps Mr. McCormick wasn't there.
[English]
The Chairman: What's the point?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Clause 66 -
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: ...says:
``66. The Commission shall, with the approval of the governor in council [...] set the premium rate for each year...''
Clause 66 may not be the best place to do this, but it should be included here somewhere, unless we add a new Clause 66.1
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Don't make a motion on a rumour...
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: In order to fulfil his promise or achieve his stated goal, the minister has to -
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Are you making a motion, Mr. Dubé?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé:... cap the Employment Insurance Account surplus at $5 billion.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: He did not promise that.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: What is Mr. McCormick saying? I can't hear the interpreter.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, with all due respect, you know I've never interrupted you before, but I will this time because I think you've gone a little bit over the Clause 66. What the minister said or didn't say is really not an issue here.
We're just dealing with the Clause. Are you happy with the Clause? If you're not happy with the Clause, do you want to move an amendment to the Clause?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: No.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Dubé: So we're going to do it.
[English]
The Chairman: No, I mean it. Well, then, shall Clause 66 -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: What I wanted to say is that we will not necessarily be moving an amendment here, but we will definitely consider doing so at report stage. We are well aware of the fact that when we move an amendment here, it generally is not possible to... That brings me back to what we discussed earlier - the really important phrase here.
An hon. member: There is no strategy.
Mr. Crête: As far as strategy goes... The important phrase here is the one where it talks about the recommendation of the minister and the minister of Finance. There may be some mechanism that would help to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained in the Employment Insurance Account. Without necessarily taking into account the minister of Finance's budget constraints, the minister of Human Resources should perhaps make a recommendation directly to the Cabinet.
.2040
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you for your contribution, Mr. Crête.
Mr. McCormick.
Mr. McCormick: Mr. Chair, just to basically make sure I'm on record, the honourable colleague on the far side is quoting what the minister said at committee. Now, I recall that the minister was here and shared many things about the future with us, but the minister did not state what the maximum ceiling would be. Also, the colleague referred to our minister and his deal in talking to Mr. Martin, but again no figures were mentioned. I just want to make that clear.
The Chairman: Yes, and I don't think that's even relevant.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to provide some additional information in response to Mr. McCormick's comments.
Last week, the minister said it would be a good idea to set a cap, although he did not specify what that might be.
[English]
M. McCormick: But your colleague -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: He said it might be worthwhile setting a cap. That's what I heard.
[English]
Ms Augustine: That's speculation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That is not speculation, Mrs. Augustine. He did indeed say that he thought it might be a good idea to set a cap.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: The casino is across the river.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Secondly, he also said that it might be a good idea to consider lowering premiums as soon as possible.
I think that's a very good suggestion and I must say I thought it was most appropriate, coming as it did on the eve of the demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, thank you.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I also have a comment to make.
We don't intend to dwell on this, Mr. Chairman, but the comments I make now can be considered to apply to the rest of the discussion. We are concerned about co-operation, because we have been given only ten hours to consider this bill.
We could have decided, a long time ago, to discuss the recommendations a great many people have made with respect to the bill. But we agreed to co-operate because we know that there are some important Clauses in here and we want to be sure we deal with the main issues. At the same time, however, I would not like to see the government take advantage of our willingness to co-operate by later claiming that ten hours were adequate for the Clause-by-Clause consideration.
So, if we are making fewer comments tonight, it is only because we realize we have to concern ourselves with the essential issues and make comments wherever we can. But, again, I would not like to see the government take advantage of the situation by using what we've said against us later.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, I've always said they've been some of the most cooperative members I've ever worked with.
Clauses 68 to 71 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 72 - Payment into Consolidated Revenue Fund
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 72?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We're moving a little too quickly. Perhaps we should have a brief discussion on Clause 72.
The Chairman: You want a brief discussion?
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Well, if you have to.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This Clause states that monies shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Perhaps we could be told why UI Fund money cannot remain as a separate fund?
This is related to the recommendation of the two ministers. I know the Minister of Finance has no desire to lose control over the purse strings, because this is a great way of making the deficit look lower than it actually is. At the same time, however, I do think this needs to be corrected, and that in so doing, we would greatly reduce the frustration of people who pay into the Fund - both employers and employees. We will be giving this further thought.
Mr. Dubé: Since we are trying to adjust to what are exceptional circumstances, we'll leave it at that.
Mr. Crête: We will wait for the next amendment.
[English]
Mr. Nault: The question.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: On division.
[English]
Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 75 - Other credits to Employment Insurance Account
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 75?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There is an amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, there is one.
Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Don't get ahead of the parliamentary secretary; you'll have your knuckles rapped if you do.
.2045
[English]
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 75 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out lines 8 to 11 on page 56 and substituting the following:
- ``imposed under section 38, 39 or 65.1 and repayments of overpaid benefits, except interest and
penalties on benefit repayment;''
- ``sures authorized by Part II;''
- ``ments entered into under section 63; or
- (f) received as interest under section 80.1.''
Mr. Crête: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Because of new Clause 80.1, relating to the payment of interest - and we haven't got to this Clause yet - it is necessary to provide that interest received will be credited to the employment insurance account.
Mr. McCormick: That is good news.
Mr. Nault: Amounts received from penalties under part II shall also be credited to the employment insurance account. That's to make it very obvious to all members that this doesn't go into general revenue, as has been suggested by even - heaven forbid - The Globe and Mail. In fact, it does not go there; everything that is involved in the account goes straight to the account, including the penalties and the interest.
Mr. McCormick: I see the agreement across the table. I expect that our colleagues will support this motion.
The Chairman: Well, we'll find out.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have a question of clarification. I see here that penalties recovered under Clause 65.1 amount to $300 and some million that will be going into government coffers as a result of these three amendments. Much of this will be additional amounts received from people accused of fraud. Is that the right interpretation of this Clause?
Mr. Dubé: I think that Mr. Regan -
Mr. Crête: Did someone answer me?
[English]
Mr. Nault: I didn't get that translation at all. I'm trying to understand what the question was.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Perhaps my question wasn't clear. I am a little tired.
The amendment reads as follows: by striking out lines 8 to 11 on 56 and substituting the following:
- ``imposed under sections 38, 39 or 65.1 and repayments...''
- Reference to Clause ``65.1'' has been added here.
Clause 65.1 deals with monies to be recovered in addition to penalties. And in the main part of the bill, it says the government will receive additional amounts equal to additional commitments introduced through the amendments. Right?
Mr. Leduc: In Clause 65.1, we are only talking about penalties. We added Part II to go with the other penalties in Clause 38, 39 and 65.1. As for whether the penalties under Clause 65.1 are the ones that will bring in these amounts, I believe they represent only a small portion of these monies.
Mr. Crête: So, if I understand correctly, the main penalties paid by people who commit fraud are not the ones listed under Clause 65.1, but rather under the other part of the bill.
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Mr. Crête: Thank you for that information.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 75 as amended agreed to on division
.2050
On Clause 76 - Interest
The Chairman: Now we move to Clause 76. Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Clause 76 enables us to understand that:
76. The Minister of Finance may authorize the payment of interest on the balance in the Employment Insurance Account.
Does this Clause guarantee us that all the interest on the money in the unemployment insurance account will remain in the unemployment insurance account?
A voice: No.
Mr. Crête: The gentleman says yes and you say no; I'm inclined to believe him because he knows about it.
[English]
The Chairman: I only heard yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Grenon: I simply want to say that this is how the Clause in question reads. So the answer is yes.
Mr. Crête: So all the amounts that are earned in interest on the balance in the account are credited to the unemployment insurance account and debited from the Treasury.
Mr. Grenon: That is correct.
Mr. Crête: So that guarantees us that the interest will be in the unemployment insurance account.
Mr. Grenon: Yes. This Clause is not new, except as regards the name change.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: May I ask more questions?
The Chairman: Ah, one more question.
Mr. Crête: But there's no guarantee that the principal will remain in the unemployment insurance fund. The Minister says he may authorize the payment of interest, but if the government needs the principal in order to reduce its deficit, will it be able to draw on these amounts?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, this has been asked on a number of occasions. I can't remember the Clause offhand. The officials will tell me which Clause it is that deals with this.
Mr. Grenon: It's the next one.
Mr. Nault: I knew I was close, but I couldn't remember which one it was.
This question has been asked a number of times. It's Clause 77, which basically relates to the fact that no moneys, capital or otherwise, can come out of the commission for paying down the debt. There's a perception by the opposition, and even by people in the public, that there seems to be one huge pot of money out there that sits in some sort of fund somewhere. We know that's not true because we keep collecting premiums and we keep paying out benefits. It's all a paper chase, to a certain extent.
There is going to be a surplus when that does come, but, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that can't be used to pay down the debt, and that's what Clause 77 relates to.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We can talk about it on Clause 77 when we get there. I will say then that the amounts are paid, but that there is no guarantee they will be put to that use.
[English]
Ms Smith: The moneys are paid in under Clause 73. All revenues that are collected from premiums are paid in under Clause 73. The only way to get the money out is under Clause 77. So all the revenues go in, and they can only be paid out against the Clause 77 item.
The Chairman: That makes everything clear.
Shall Clause 76 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The Minister may pay or not pay interest in accordance with his terms and conditions. He can do anything.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In practical terms, has he paid interest regularly over the past few years?
Mr. Dubé: And at what rate?
[English]
Ms Smith: It's prime plus 1%, I think. I'd have to confirm that.
The Chairman: It's a good rate.
Clause 76 agreed to on division
On Clause 77 - Charges to the account
.2055
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 77 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 1 to 3 on page 57 and substituting the following:
(c) all amounts paid under paragraph 63(a); and
(d) the costs of administering this Act, including administration fees or costs paid under section 62 or paragraph 63(b).
The rationale for this is that this provision will ensure that certain costs are charged to the global employment insurance account rather than to part II. These are the costs of administering employment benefits and support measures when delivered by other parties.
The Chairman: Any discussion on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm looking. 62 and 63(b)
Clause 63(b) has been amended. That means that the...
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 77 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 78 to 80 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 80.1
Mr. Nault: I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding, immediately after line 5 on page 58, the following:
````Regulations - payment of interest''
80.1 (1) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations respecting the payment of interest on amounts owing to Her Majesty under this Act, other than Parts IV and VII, including regulations prescribing
(a) rates of interest, or the manner of calculating rates of interest, payable;
(b) terms and conditions for the imposition and payment of interest; and
(c) terms and conditions under which the Commission may waive, reduce or write off the interest payable.
``Debt due to Her Majesty''
(2) Interest payable under this section is a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in the Federal Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction or in any other manner provided by this Act, including the manner in which an amount owing under Part I may be recovered under subsection 47(2) or section 126.
``Limitation''
(3) No interest due under this section may be recovered more than 72 months after the day on which the liability to pay it arose.
``Exclusion of Financial Administration Act''
(4) Section 155.1 of the Financial Administration Act does not apply in relation to amounts owing to Her Majesty under this Act, other than Parts IV and VII.''
Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it to the officials to explain it in detail.
The Chairman: Okay.
Ms Smith: A Treasury Board policy brought into effect on April 1 of this year requires interest to be paid on all debts due the Crown. We have the option of having the general policy that's laid out under the Financial Administration Act apply to the EI program, or given the special nature, the unique nature, of the employment insurance system, to provide ourselves with the regulations to have our own specially designed system of interest payments. That would permit us to do this.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Smith.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Why is there an exception for Parts IV and VII?
.2100
[English]
Ms Smith: Those two provisions relate to premium collection and the clawback, and they're governed under the Department of Finance, under the Income Tax Act. So under that act there already are interest provisions that apply to taxes not paid.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Thank you.
At Sub-Clause (3), which concerns the recovery of the interest concerned, there is still mention of the 72 months. That's six years. When someone is caught, the money plus interest is recovered. The interest becomes part of the problem after six years. The penalties have doubled, even tripled.
This is what pushes people into personal bankruptcy. I'm convinced that the government will not make more money with this. How many people cannot pay and file for personal bankruptcy? Do you have an idea of the percentage?
[English]
Ms Smith: I believe we recover between 80% and 90% of all our outstanding overpayments and penalties.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: So the remaining 10 or 20 percent are people who never repay and who declare personal bankruptcy.
[English]
Ms Smith: They might not refund 100% of what they are due. It's not a question of a debt being not paid at all, or paid 80%. It's all sorts of circumstances.
Mr. Grenon: Could I add just one thing to that? The six-year limitation for the interest parallels the six-year limitation for the recovery of overpayments under Clause 47, which we dealt with awhile ago. So it's consequential that even though the Clause is new, the six-year part of it is not.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It's not because it's bad in one place that it's better in another.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll sleep on that, but we'll pass this one first.
Shall new Clause 80.1 carry?
Amendment agreed to on division
Clauses 81 to 87 inclusive agreed to on division
.2105
On Clause 88 - Inspections
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 88 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 5 to 7 on page 67 and substituting the following:
````Copies as evidence''
(12) If a document is inspected, audited, examined or provided in accordance with this section,
(a) the person by whom it is inspected, audited, or''
Of course the subject-matter is authority to audit employers' records concerning premiums, and the rationale for this is that this will include under Sub-Clause 88.(12) the authority to audit records as well as to inspect and examine them. The power to audit is already granted in other Sub-Clauses of Clause 88.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dubé has gone. I was going to say we could speed up now that Mr. Dubé has Mr. Crête to help him, but I guess we'll have to go at the same speed we were going at.
The Chairman: No, he'll come back.
Mr. Nault: For the record, I understand where you're going, Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We encounter many difficult situations in the field. Investigations are often conducted by people from another region, in particular Revenue Canada's investigations into insurable employment. Are you saying this has no relation to that?
Mr. Leduc: This Clause concerns only premiums. We will be coming to what you want to talk about a little later.
Mr. Crête: I want to talk about the cases where people are asked to go to Quebec City with their books, to virtually move their household in order to meet the requirements.
Mr. Leduc: No, no. I'll let you go. I thought it was for insurability.
Mr. Crête: These are people who are under investigation. They could be the employers whose books the inspector comes to audit. They telephone first to tell him that he is under investigation. He is asked to send his book of account.
This creates difficult situations. People often only have the originals of these documents. The investigation is at the person's expense.
This comes back to an aspect of Clause 88(1)(b), which provides:
``(b) require the owner, occupant or person in charge of the premises or place to give the authorized person all reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act and, for that purpose, require the owner, occupant or person in charge to attend at the premises or place with the authorized person.''
People can often be led around by the nose. A person who decides to cause a little obstruction is in a poor position with respect to the employer or the Commission.
Can't this situation be improved in a realistic way so that people don't need to move their material? Are there tools? Does the situation I am describing cause you a problem?
Mr. Leduc: I am not aware of the situation you are describing.
Mr. Crête: It happens often.
Mr. Leduc: These statutory provisions appear in a number of statutes, including the Income Tax Act. They appear in many federal and provincial statutes. It is a necessary tool for the administrator who goes into businesses, who can look at the books and have them seized.
You have a practical problem, the problem of the books that the officials could look at, but the statute is necessary.
.2110
Mr. Crête: I just want to sum up on this point. My problem is not the fact that people can come and do investigations on site, can come and look at the books and so on. It's the requirements we have for moving the material and taking people... This can't be done by electronic mail because the legal document has to be sent. Ultimately, these measures are taken under this Clause.
Mr. Leduc: This Clause is very broad. It could... I'm not sure.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: Some aspects of this bill will be a great help for small business and business people across this country. The records of employment have been simplified and you no longer have to have an advanced degree in the study of either language in order to make out these records of employment. There will be major savings in money and time. Small businesses and major businesses really like what they see.
So that offsets some of this standard procedure, but this procedure does exist in each part of the government.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 88 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 89 agreed to on division
On Clause 90 - Request for ruling
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 90?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We're going to think about it.
Mr. Dubé: It's important and we're going to go at it calmly.
Mr. Crête: It's on insurability. This Clause concerns rulings and appeals. It states:
``90. (1) An employer, an employee, a person claiming to be an employer or an employee or the Commission may request an officer of the Department of National Revenue authorized by the Minister to make a ruling on any of the following questions:
(a) whether an employment is insurable;''
I am bringing up the amendment I forgot to introduce this morning to Clause 4 or 5. I think it would be interesting if rulings as to whether employment is insurable could be made by the Commission. Technically, would it cause problems if we could permit, for example, the ruling on insurability to be made directly by Human Resources Development Canada? Are there difficulties involved in carrying this out? Was a choice made to leave this with Revenue Canada because it is an existing practice or was there a better reason?
Mr. Dubé: In other words, why do you Human Resources Development officials trust the Department of Revenue more?
[English]
Mr. McFee: I will just repeat what I started to say previously. The decisions in this part of the legislation have been made by Revenue Canada since 1971. In that period of time they've acquired a fair amount of expertise in the doing of that. Secondly, the cost of their doing that is charged to our department. Thirdly, there is very close liaison between the two departments. In fact, there is an interdepartmental committee, which I co-chair, that deals with operational issues, that deals with and tries to address issues such as slowdowns in the system, which were raised previously, and so on.
Beyond saying that, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to comment on the policy reasons for why Revenue Canada does that.
The Chairman: But it is clear that you trust them, Mr. McFee?
Mr. McFee: Yes. Implicitly.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The Department of Human Resources Development is one of the 10 departments that were hit by staff cuts last year. Is the Department of Revenue affected by the same problem?
[English]
Ms Smith: I don't believe so, no.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: That may be the reason. That's fairly surprising, since those who are familiar with the Human Resources Development programs should be the officials of that department, but here appeal cases are entrusted to the Department of Revenue.
.2115
Mr. Grenon: I can't comment too much on this question, which is very, very broad since it concerns the division of powers within government.
[English]
Ms Smith: I might add, though, that there are many decisions about insurability. When the case is straightforward, and when our local staff feels confident about what the situation is all about, they will make the judgment on the spot in the local office. Only the marginal cases, the ones that seem to be pushing precedent, the ones that are really on the edge of the definition, are referred to Revenue Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Our main argument is that the Department of Revenue has fewer decentralized offices and that travel expenses must be paid to go handle appeal cases in the regions. Unless I am mistaken, this will ultimately be very costly.
[English]
Ms Smith: Revenue Canada is a very decentralized department as well. They have regional offices all across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Not as much as the Department of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Mr. McFee: There may not be as many points of delivery as there are with Human Resources Development, but there are a large number of Revenue Canada offices. In fact our offices on the spot work closely with their offices on the spot, with Quebec City being one of the better examples.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I wish to move an amendment to Clause 90 replacing the words ``of National Revenue'' with the words ``of Human Resources Development''. I'm basing it on three main arguments.
The first is that, contrary to what you are saying, Revenue Canada does not have many points of delivery. I know there are two places in Quebec where appeal cases are handled: Quebec City, which embraces all of eastern Quebec, Lac-Saint-Jean, the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé, the North Shore and the Quebec City area, and another that encompasses western Quebec. There are serious bottleneck problems here and when it is ruled that people are not insurable, they are unable to obtain information in advance on the measures in effect. This serious bottleneck could be resolved by asking the Department of Human Resources Development to take over responsibility for it.
The second argument is that federal staff would be better distributed over the territory based on the number of citizens who make use of these services. These investigations are not always interesting, but the rulings would be made by people set up in the regions concerned. We would thus have a more satisfactory distribution of regional jobs.
The third element is that, being in the field, these people will be in a better position to listen and pay special attention. The new challenge will be to interpret and enforce the act in a standard fashion, which will be much better than the very preliminary investigations that are currently conducted. People are assessed based on a mere one and a half minute telephone call; the answers obtained at the end of these discussions are very surprising. This is a technical point. I wish to table this amendment because I've already made a private bill of it which, I hope, will be drawn and taken into consideration.
I therefore table my amendment, which is simply to replace the words ``of National Revenue'' in Clause 90 with ``of Human Resources Development'' and which may be considered later when the Clause is taken under consideration.
[English]
The Chairman: Of course we now know what we do with this. We stand both the amendment and the Clause, and move on to the next Clause.
Clause 90 allowed to stand
On Clause 91 - Appeal of rulings
The Chairman: I ask for discussion. I see none, so does the Clause carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: One moment. Why 90 days?
Mr. Crête: What ruling that may be appealed from to the Minister is being referred to in Clause 91?
Mr. Leduc: To the ruling concerned in Clause 90.
Mr. Crête: Which minister are we talking about?
.2120
Mr. Leduc: The Minister of National Revenue.
Mr. Crête: If we replace ``of Revenue Canada'' with ``of Human Resources Development'' in the previous amendment, we could conclude that, in Clause 91, which mentions only the Minister, we are talking about the Minister of Human Resources Development. Isn't that true?
Thus, if the Department of Human Resources Development makes the evaluations, the appeal can nevertheless be put before Revenue Canada?
Mr. Leduc: The appeal is made to the Minister of National Revenue.
Mr. Crête: All right. That answers my question.
[English]
Clause 91 agreed to on division
On Clause 92 - Appeal of assessments
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Can the Minister reverse all the Commission's rulings?
Mr. Leduc: That's not what I said.
Mr. Dubé: Because the Commission doesn't made the rulings.
Mr. Leduc: It was your colleague who moved an amendment. We said nothing on this subject.
Mr. Crête: The decision is currently up to the Department of National Revenue; the authorized official and the Commission may make an appeal from the ruling to that minister. This is the current situation. I believe the Department of Human Resources Development could make the ruling at the lower level and that the appeal could nevertheless be made to the Department of National Revenue. The Clause would become obsolete. Doesn't the Commission normally make the appeal itself?
Mr. Leduc: No.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
[English]
Clauses 92 to 95 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 96 - Refund - overpayments
The Chairman: There is an amendment to Clause 96. Mr. McCormick.
Mr. McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. I move that Clause 96 of the English version of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 72 and substituting the following:
- ``is payable only if an application is made in''
Clause 96 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 97 to 101 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 102 - Information or complaint
Mr. Crête: Whoa.
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Crête would like a little more time.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This Clause is fairly long.
Mr. Dubé: I would like to have my colleagues' attention. For a new case, I believe it is worth taking the trouble to stop and compare the changes to the former act. There is no problem with respect to the old provisions.
[English]
The Chairman: By all means, take the time necessary.
Mr. Proud: That's a wicked one.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: At page 75, Sub-Clause (6), line 27, it reads an affidavit of an officer of the Department of National Revenue. Does the word ``affidavit'' correspond to the definition contained in this bill? Does the Income Tax Act also refer to an affidavit? There could be a different definition from the one we have in this bill.
Mr. Leduc: You are looking at the bill obviously.
Mr. Crête: Yes.
Mr. Leduc: [Inaudible - Editor]
.2125
[English]
The Chairman: Can you repeat that? The interpreter is having problems hearing you. Speak right into the mike. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Leduc: The affidavit referred to in Sub-Clause 102(6) has the same definition as in Clause 2 of the bill, which we discussed a few days ago.
Mr. Crête: The definition of the affidavit of an officer of the Department of National Revenue is the same as that appearing in the bill we are considering here.
Mr. Leduc: Yes, because Clause 2 establishes the definitions that apply for the purposes of this act.
Mr. Crête: I have no further points to raise.
[English]
Clauses 102 to 110 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 111 - Boards to be established
The Chairman: There's an amendment to Clause 111.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Could you wait a bit? I would like us to be in agreement. Part V, ``Pilot Projects'', starts at Clause 109 and is entirely new.
The Chairman: No, it is not new.
Mr. Crête: No?
Mr. Dubé: It goes back to Bill C-113.
Mr. Crête: In the binder, it reads ``new, former Part III''. It's the number of the part that's different. I understand.
[English]
The Chairman: Let's go back to Mr. Nault then. We were discussing Clause 111.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 111 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 86 and substituting the following:
- ``quorum;
- (a.1) respecting the practice and procedure for proceedings before a board of referees, including
authorizing the chairperson of a board of referees to determine the practice and procedure;
The Chairman: That's pretty clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It states ``may make such regulations''. What is meant by ``make''? Does it mean pass regulations or take them from somewhere else?
Mr. Leduc: It is a term that simply means ``may pass, may create, may make''.
Mr. Dubé: Why has ``may, by regulation'' been replaced by ``may make regulations''? This is what the amendment proposes. Parliament no doubt has a reason for making this change. Does the expression ``may, by regulation'', which is what is usually seen, have a particular meaning?
My understanding is that the Commission may now pass regulations itself, instead of the Minister. Is that correct?
Mr. Leduc: Under our provisions, the Minister may not make regulations. It is still up to the Commission.
Mr. Dubé: What was the previous situation? What is it now?
Mr. Leduc: Until now, we have had an authority which, we believe, empowered us among other things to authorize the chairperson to chair. We discussed the dubious nature of this authority at one point and decided to include it in the act so that it would be very clear.
The authority is thus stated in the act. It is very clear that we cannot make regulations.
.2130
[English]
The Chairman: You have something to say about this, right, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have something to say on the Clause, not on the amendment as such. We could consider the amendment carefully, but I first want to come back to Clause 111 because I may have another draft amendment.
Mr. Dubé: Then let's carry the amendment on division.
Mr. Crête: Very well, let's dispose of the amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, the amendment is carried on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I want to come back to Clause 111.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As I have seen the manner in which appointments are made to the boards of referees, I would like us to give more consideration to the required qualifications. Certain boards of referees consist of excellent persons and others who have highly colourful personalities but do not necessarily have the qualifications to perform their duties.
I know that the Conservatives made appointments to these boards of referees. The terms have expired and there is a trend toward systematically replacing them, even when they were very good. That's a fact. I'm not presuming to judge the quality of all appointments. I'm saying that there may be dubious cases.
Let's talk seriously so we can move things along. Let's return to the top of page 86, where it reads:
``(2) The chairperson of a board of referees shall be appointed by the Governor in Council for a renewable term of three years and may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council for cause.''
I would like people to be appointed from lists of persons who have won a competition, somewhat as is done for judges, at least those from Quebec. It goes without saying that, at the end of the process, the Minister or the Governor in Council will have the authority to appoint the persons, but from those who appear on a list of people who have demonstrated their qualifications.
I intend to move an amendment that would be worded so as to add to the existing text, after the words ``for a renewable term of three years'', the following text:
- ``From lists constituted on the basis of competitions to assess candidates' qualifications.''
The Chairman: Okay. Well, this means that this amendment is going to stand, as will the Clause. Is everybody clear on that?
Clause 111 allowed to stand
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There may be something else concerning the Clause, or we can move on to the following Clause and come back to this one later. I wouldn't want to slow down the discussion, but this is a Clause to which I may have a few amendments to move.
[English]
Mr. McCormick: You guys can work that out later tonight.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In any case, we'll be finished around 10:00 p.m. There's no way to extend the sitting.
Mr. Dubé: Given the necessary time to eat, that will take us to 10:30 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Nault: At 10:15 p.m., I believe.
The Chairman: What's a half-hour? Say it's 10:30.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: [Inaudible - Editor]... analyze the process.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, that was clear. Can we move to Clause 112? Any discussion?
Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to on division
On Clause 114 - Appeal to board of refugees
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Wait a minute! Clause 114 hasn't been agreed to yet. It has to be read carefully.
[English]
The Chairman: Now we're on Clause 114. Mr. Dubé, you look quite interested.
.2135
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's a word...
Mr. Dubé: Yes, particularly in Clause 2.
[English]
The Chairman: Your interest was limited, I guess.
Clause 114 agreed to on division
On Clause 115 - Appeal to umpire
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that the French version of Clause 115 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 3 on page 89 and substituting the following:
[Translation]
- ``devant un''
Amendment agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm going to try to understand it. You are moving that the French version be amended by striking out line 3 and substituting...
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête needs an explanation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Lastly, does the amendment delete ``de la manière prévue par règlement''?
[English]
Mr. Nault: It allows appeal to the umpire from a decision of the board of referees. The reason for the change is that in the introductory sentence of Sub-Clause 115.(1) the French version grants authority to make regulations concerning appeals to the umpire but the English version does not include any such authority. To correct the inconsistency, regulation-making authority is removed in the French version. That's the reason for the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I didn't pay attention to the question on feminization. Is there a provision in this bill stating, for example, that when one speaks of the ``juge-arbitre'', all the...
Mr. Leduc: Because we're talking about ``un juge-arbitre'' and not ``une juge-arbitre''?
Mr. Dubé: Is there a general provision somewhere that states ... Nowhere?
Mr. Leduc: No, there isn't. However, the Department of Justice long ago issued the opinion - my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong - that under grammatical rules, the masculine includes the feminine in the French versions.
Mr. Dubé: That can cause a problem in certain areas of Quebec. I'm merely pointing that out. This exists in all the statutes.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Here is how I understand the amendment: on the third line of the French version on page 89, the words ``de la manière prévue par règlement'' are being deleted. The text used to read:
``115. (1) Toute décision d'un conseil arbitral peut, de plein droit, être portée en appel de la manière prévue par règlement, devant un...''
Under the amendment, line 3 simply appears to read ``devant un juge-arbitre''. Is this because no way was provided by regulation? Is this a concordance amendment?
Mr. Leduc: It's in Clause 116. The person who drafted it in French had written it twice, in Clause 115 and in Clause 116.
Mr. Crête: So it is a concordance amendment.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I have made other checks and, in the opinion of the people who are assisting us here, feminization is an element of the distinct society in Quebec. It should be mentioned in each statute.
It's to inform people in the other provinces that we take care not to injure the sensibilities of women in our society.
In the meantime, my friend Mr. Crête can find his place in his papers.
Mr. Crête: I've found my place, all right. I understood it was a matter of concordance.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I received an answer to my question.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 115 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 116 agreed to on division
On Clause 117 - Powers of umpire
The Chairman: Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: This is only a precaution I am taking in checking that this doesn't change the former act. I think it's a good idea to proceed quickly.
We are at Clause 116. Is that correct? Very well. All right, I see.
.2140
[English]
The Chairman: We're at Clause 117. Clause 116 already passed. It was carried on division.
Clause 117 agreed to on division
On Clause 118 - Decision final
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It's indicated that all mention of the ruling by the board of referees has been removed in Clause 118. Why was this done?
Mr. Crête: What was the previous text?
Mr. Dubé: I don't know, but this removes any mention of the ruling by the board of referees.
Mr. Leduc: It's because the ruling by the board of referees is not final and not subject to appeal. It may be appealed to the umpire.
Mr. Dubé: Very well.
[English]
Clauses 118 and 119 agreed to on division
On Clause 120 - Amendment of decision
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 120?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Watch out! The wording here is new. We have to pay special attention. Wait a bit.
Mr. Crête: Can the Clause be explained to us since it is new?
Mr. Leduc: Clause 120 states the same thing as previously, except that the drafter chose to reword it in a style that seemed clearer to him. I can explain it to you. All the Clause says is that, once the Commission, the board of referees or an umpire has made a decision, if new facts appear, an error, for example...
Mr. Crête: He may rescind his decision.
Mr. Leduc: The drafter merely reworded it.
Mr. Crête: He wrote it in another way.
[English]
Clause 120 agreed to on division
On Clause 121 - Payment of benefit pending appeal
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Here again, the wording is new. What's going on here exactly?
Mr. McFee: Once again, this is a rewording. These are stylistic changes.
Mr. Dubé: Without changing the effects.
Mr. McFee: You are referring to 121?
Mr. Dubé: Yes. Without any change of effect.
Mr. McFee: No change in substance.
Mr. Dubé: I believe you.
[English]
Clause 121 agreed to on division
On Clause 122 - Determination of questions
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There's a problem here.
Mr. Dubé: That's what we were just talking about.
Mr. Crête:
122. If a question specified in section 90 arises in the consideration of a claim for benefits,...
[English]
The Chairman: What's the problem, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête:
- ``... it shall be determined by an authorized officer of the Department of National Revenue, as
provided by this section.''
[English]
Mr. Easter: You don't think that's going to carry.
The Chairman: You moved it on the other one, right?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, but are you prepared to consider that this amendment will amend the act throughout?
[English]
The Chairman: But if the first one is going to be approved, then it would follow logically that you would have to change the rest, right?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Your amendment is still going to be negatived in a little while.
[English]
A Voice: Not much chance of that.
The Chairman: You understand that, I'm sure.
Mr. Easter: We'll be up all night.
The Chairman: But if you want to have an amendment, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Well, then, I'm going to write it.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that carried on division?
Mr. Easter: He's going to write it.
The Chairman: Oh, you're going to write it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You misunderstood. I said I was going to write it.
[English]
The Chairman: I thought you said ``I agree''.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I enunciated poorly.
Mr. Dubé: There's a problem in Clause 123, not really a problem, but...
[English]
The Chairman: We'll wait for the amendment to be written before we move forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All right, Mr. Chairman. My style is becoming increasingly succinct.
[English]
The Chairman: We want to hear the amendment first.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I move that the words ``of National Revenue'' be replaced by the words ``of Human Resources Development'' in Clause 122.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
Clause 122 allowed to stand
On Clause 123 - Regulations
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: There are not many problems, but it states here that these are new regulatory powers for the procedure to be followed in appeals.
Mr. Leduc: I used the word ``new'' because the power is separate. The power to make regulations already existed, but it appeared in two different places. Now it is mentioned in only one place. However, the power already existed.
.2145
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, where it states ``may, with the approval of the Governor in Council'', does that mean that the regulations respecting appeals must be approved by the Governor in Council?
Mr. Leduc: It means much more than approve them. The Commission states them and it is the Governor in Council that approves them. That's what the words ``with the approval'' mean.
Mr. Dubé: We should have done it before.
[English]
Clause 123 agreed to on division
On Clause 124 - Investigation by Commission
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Clause 124 is the former subsection 92(3). No comments.
[English]
Clause 124 agreed to on division
[Translation]
On Clause 125 - Information or complaint
Mr. Dubé: Wait a bit. Clause 125 is a new version of the former subsection 93(1). No, no problem.
[English]
Clauses 125 to 127 inclusive agreed to on division
On Clause 128 - Exception for war crimes
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: You went a bit too fast. Did you mention Clause 126?
A voice: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Clause 126 is already approved.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It's a new version.
[English]
The Chairman: We went 124, 125, 126, 127. Now we're at 128. We can't go back; we've got to go forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: That depends...
[English]
The Chairman: Clause 128.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I note that this is new wording in Clause 126. I wanted to check whether it contained changes. I'm told that it is the former subsection 94(1). Is that correct?
Mr. McFee: Except as regards Sub-Clause (4).
[English]
In English it means that registered mail becomes guaranteed delivery service. I think we already talked about that.
Are you on Clause 126?
The Chairman: I'm on 128; he's on 126.
Mr. Dubé: Pardon?
The Chairman: We're letting him ask a question on 126.
Mr. McFee, out of courtesy to Mr. Dubé... He wants still to deal with 126, but it has already passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It's because we're told it is a new version.
Mr. Leduc: On this point, I will mention, with your permission, that nothing has been changed. The binder you have on the Clauses was first drafted in English and then translated. I believe Clause 126 has not been reworded.
Ms René de Cotret: Sub-Clause 126(1) has not been reworded.
Mr. Leduc: It has not been reworded.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, but what about all the others? There are others: 126(20), 126(21), 126(22). This Clause contains 22 Sub-Clauses. I don't know whether the people of the party in power have noticed it, but there are 22.
[English]
A voice: We've had briefings on it for the last couple of months.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 128?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We're talking about new wording with the inclusion of information filed and obtained.
Mr. Leduc: Are you on Clause 128, sir?
Mr. Dubé: Yes, yes, yes. It's because the Chairman asked me to go quickly. He's got to there.
Mr. Leduc: This is an amendment that went into effect about a year ago. It was contained in the bill amending the Canada Pension Plan. A small change was made. Do you want me to find it?
Mr. Dubé: The information may be reserved for later. It doesn't seem major.
Mr. Leduc: No, but if you wish, we will find it. I don't want to slow anything down.
Mr. Dubé: Just because I'm using the instruments that we prepared, and prepared well. As you indicated that the wording was new, with the inclusion of information filed and obtained, I would like, without slowing down the debate, to know what is new.
Mr. Leduc: I'm told that the word ``held'' - for information held - was replaced by the word ``obtained''.
Mr. Dubé: Because the word ``held'' was not appropriate. Very good.
[English]
Clause 128 agreed to on division
.2150
On Clause 129 - Privilege
The Chairman: Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Once again, the wording in Clause 129 is new.
[English]
The Chairman: Clause 129 is not new, according to Ms Smith.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: What does the new wording mean? What does it offer that is new?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. McFee.
Mr. McFee: Sir, I believe part of the problem with the
[Translation]
new wording is that in writing this bill, in certain places, they changed the wording of the English version or the French version when the drafter thought it should be written otherwise, in a more modern style.
[English]
In English, no reference to gender, etc.
[Translation]
In the notes we have prepared, we sometimes indicate ``new wording'', which does not necessarily mean that the French version is changed. Sometimes it's the English version.
That's what I should have answered to your question two or three minutes ago. I had the French Sub-Clause in my mind, whereas it is the English version that was changed. It's the same thing.
Mr. Leduc: I don't want to correct Mr. McFee, with whom I always agree, but there is a small change here. The word ``officer'' has been replaced by ``other perso''.
Mr. Dubé: ``Officer'' by ``other person''? In Clause 129? Let me see: ``an employer, claimant or other person gives the Commission ...''
Mr. Leduc: In the former section 97...
Mr. Crête: Immunity is with respect to...
Mr. Dubé: ``Officer'' is not written.
Mr. Crête: That makes it possible for you to have, for example, an informer who is covered by immunity, someone who would be party to an employer's fraud involving a number of other employees, for example. If one of them came and told the truth, he would be protected by this Clause.
Mr. Leduc: It's a relative immunity.
Mr. Crête: Relative to what does this immunity protect him? Is it relative to the department? This is certainly not valid for all the statutes.
Mr. Leduc: No, it would be relative to liable and defamation actions that might be instituted against that person.
[English]
Clauses 129 to 134 inclusive agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It is indicated that the wording in Clause 134 is new. This is the guarantee that documents in electronic form are valid. This is a point that we discussed. It would be worthwhile ...
[English]
The Chairman: We did already, yes, earlier on. We will. We can find out right away if it's something new.
Ms Smith, is this new?
Ms Smith: Yes.
The Chairman: Could I get a quick explanation on this, please?
Mr. McFee: This Clause would be read in conjunction with Clause 2, Clause 134 and Clause 143, and probably another one; I've forgotten. That's the combination of Clauses that deals with permission to have documents be considered to be things that are electronic.
The Chairman: Okay. That's clear. Thank you, Mr. McFee.
On Clause 135 - Offence
Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 135 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by adding immediately after line 28 on page 104 the following:
``(b.1) knowingly fails to declare to the Commission all or some of their earnings for a period determined under the regulations for which they claim benefits;''
(b) by striking out line 7 on page 105 and substituting the following:
``38, 39 or 65.1.''
(c) by striking out lines 11 to 15 on page 105 and substituting the following:
``more than $5,000 plus,
(i) in a case mentioned in paragraph 1 (b.1), an amount of not more than double the total of the amount by which the person's benefits were reduced under subsection 19(3) and the amount of the benefits that would have been paid to the claimant for the period mentioned in that paragraph if the benefits had not been reduced or the claimant had not been disentitled or disqualified from receiving benefits, or
(ii) in any other appropriate case, an amount of not more double the amount of any benefits that may have been paid as a result of committing the offence; or''
The Chairman: Explanation.
.2155
Mr. Regan: The purpose of this amendment is to provide a prosecution penalty parallel to the penalty provision of Sub-Clause 38(2), applicable to persons who knowingly failed to declare their earnings while in receipt of benefits.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: It states from $200 to $5,000. What were the previous amounts?
Ms René de Cotret: They were the same.
Mr. Dubé: They were the same. Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 135 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 136 agreed to on division
[Translation]
On Clause 137 - General Penalty for Offences
Mr. Dubé: There is a new concept here, that of a minimum fine in order to promote fair treatment from region to region.
Mr. Leduc: I can tell you that that went up to $2,000, but we just set a minimum fine at $100.
Mr. Dubé: $200 or $100?
Mr. Leduc: I'm referring to Clause 137.
Mr. Dubé: You're on 137?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: I am, too.
[English]
Clauses 137 to 140 inclusive agreed to on division
[Translation]
On Clause 141 - Prohibitions
Mr. Dubé: It is indicated that there is new wording in 141 to avoid having to enforce the Criminal Code. We are told that this is a new prohibition from lending a social insurance card for fraudulent purposes or selling a social insurance card. It's essentially that?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: It's to avoid having to enforce the Criminal Code?
Mr. Leduc: Previously, lending one's card and using it fraudulently were not violations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They were only in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Dubé: This is now part of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Instead of going to court, we now go before the Commission.
Mr. Leduc: That is correct.
Mr. Dubé: Thank you.
[English]
Clauses 141 and 142 agreed to on division
[Translation]
On Clause 143 - Regulations
Mr. Dubé: Sub-Clause 143(1) concerns the keeping of documents in electronic form and Sub-Clause 143(2) the application of powers provided in the context of pilot projects for a limited duration.
[English]
The Chairman: Not 142.
Ms Smith: Clause 143 allows us to establish regulations with respect to electronic documents. Sub-Clause 143(2), because we'll be moving into a new area, just specifies that these regulations could be for pilot projects.