In return, I know that all our colleagues around this table will want to take the trouble to listen to the arguments we develop in support of the amendments we move. But how can we do so in the space of a few minutes? These questions are complex. We are not dealing with small problems here and the results of our actions will not be without consequences. It is the entire socio-economic balance that is in question.
[English]
from sea to sea to sea, so you see why five minutes is too short.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Proud: Do you see? I see?
Mr. de Savoye: If you see what I see and I see what you see, then we shall all see.
Mr. Proud: There's no problem.
Mr. de Savoye: So, Madam Chair, I would wish that all the members opposite would therefore see to it that their motion be.... How do you say retiré?
Mr. Easter: Withdrawn.
Mr. de Savoye: Withdrawn.
Mr. Easter: You've said it; you've said it.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, in an organization, the players will always ...
[English]
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): That's a yes. The motion is carried.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: My colleague opposite is always a few minutes late, but he is now going too far.
[English]
An hon. member: You're the member who's come to the vote.
Mr. Proud: That's $5 short and an hour late.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Take off your earphone because the interpretation is not correct. Madam Chair, the players in a system always tend to maximize their profits. Numerous studies in the past 10 or 15 years have shown that, whatever the organization - a business, non-profit organization, corporation or government - the various players will position themselves on the organizational playing field so as to maximize their profits.
I'm tackling the subject in this way in order to demonstrate the complex interactions among individuals and, consequently, the need for serious debate, thorough debate in this committee on the clauses that will require it. There will definitely be some, Madam Chair. It will take more than five minutes.
Let us return to the players who, in a given system, always ensure they maximize their profits. For example, an employer tells his employees that they will henceforth have to work exactly seven hours a day, 35 hours a week, and that they simply may not work an hour more on a certain day in order to be able to do an hour less the next day or the following day. From that moment on, people will be working with a time card in hand. This will be a ridiculous and stupid operating method from an organizational standpoint, but an intelligent and brilliant one from the actor's point of view. These people will say to themselves that, at 4:45 p.m., it's better to twiddle their thumbs rather than start a new task, when they have to stop at 5:00 p.m.
If the system had been designed in a more flexible manner, a person would have been able to leave a little sooner and would have made up those 15 minutes in a useful and productive way another day. Organizations that succeed, profitable organizations, are those that introduce profitable ground rules for each of the players such that what is beneficial for the player also benefits the organization. Organizations that do not do so see their labour cost rise because of declining productivity. These organizations are eventually eliminated from the economic world map.
.1405
In the case before us, that is the clauses that we must consider, is each of the players getting what he wants? My colleague Mr. Crête pointed out a while ago that seasonal workers, among others, would be tempted to circumvent the ground rules in order to get what they want. In so doing, some would commit fraud.
It is easy to create abusers in any system. One need only consider the possible harmful effects of regulations or a statute. However, if their harmful effects are foreseen and an attempt is made to prevent them, they will not give an actor in the organization the feeling that he has to commit fraud in order to obtain justice.
I'm now going to touch on a fundamental point. In general, when a person feels cheated by the system, he feels justified in cheating the system in turn. In every person, there is a Robin Hood waiting to obtain justice for himself.
In the field of organizational planning - you will have understood that this is one of the things I used to do - the trick was to arrange things so that each individual felt valued and had the impression that the system was fair to him. If this is perceived as such by the player, he won't try to cheat a system that has treated him honestly. But do the contrary and you will see the inventive genius of human beings who will stop only when they have corrected the injustice. Is this what we are aiming for with this bill? Is this the effect, the consequence, the modus operandi that we want? No, it is not.
If we briefly consider each of the clauses, I promise you that we will obtain these results and will experience the consequences. We can avoid this by taking the time to do things well.
Madam Chair, we have lived with the former unemployment insurance program for decades. I'm talking about the former system, but it will exist for some time yet. We can tolerate it for a few more hours or weeks before replacing it. It's worth the trouble if the idea is to have a better act, an act which will give the positive results in the field that everyone is hoping for.
An individual considers a change fair if it meets three conditions. Here we are proposing a change. Each of the clauses that we will agree to will bring about a change in the way workers live. However, a worker will consider that change fair on the basis of three criteria.
First, the worker will ask himself whether he will gain or lose by it. He will wonder whether he'll pay more for the same service or the same price for a reduced service, in which case he'll be losing out, or whether he'll obtain better service for the same price or better service at lower cost, in which case he'll gain something.
.1410
In private enterprise, these changes will affect conditions of employment. Employees will wonder whether they must work the same number of hours, whether they will earn the same salary, whether their duties will be more or less difficult, whether their qualifications and experience will be as appreciated by those around them. If a person changes jobs, his expertise may become academic or irrelevant. In this case, the person will be less highly esteemed in his community and will consider that he has lost out as a result.
Thus, this first question that the individual will ask himself, that is to say whether he stands to win or lose, is very much related to emotions and perceptions. Will employees and employers consider our employment insurance bill fair for themselves, for each of them? Will they get what they want out of it? That is the first question.
The second question that an individual asks concerns a comparison with his piers. Are the others treated better than he, not as well as he or the same way as he? If others are better treated, the system is unfair and he cannot accept the change. If he is treated better than the others, he feels a certain satisfaction, but also knows that the others are going to regard him with a certain degree of envy. If he is treated like the others, he won't feel he's a victim of discrimination and will consider the change fair and the new system a good one.
The third criterion taken into consideration by an employee of a private business concerns a comparison with the employer. The employee will ask what the employer gains from the change. As you will have understood, in the case concerning us, he will ask what the government gains from it. If employees and employers perceive the government as gaining something from the implementation of this bill, they will conclude that the system is unfair to them. If, on the contrary, they perceive the benefits as equally distributed, desirable and desired by all, they will conclude that the system is fair and will act accordingly.
These questions of fairness toward all players are fundamental. We know that, as a result of a certain number of clauses in the bill, certain employees will be treated differently from others, some will pay without ever being able to expect any benefit whatever.
I ask you, Madam Chair, how will those people react? Do you believe they will be pleased to see on their pay cheque stubs the amount deducted in respect of a benefit to which they will never be entitled? They will judge the system unfair toward them.
Can an amendment improve this clause or these clauses and enable these people to draw some benefit or profit? This is not clear, but we must try to answer. This cannot be done in five minutes. We must take the time and think.
However, with my colleagues around this table and with those who could be added, I am convinced that we could make the necessary improvements so that the persons concerned would judge the reform as consistent with their human dignity, with their dignity as workers and with the requirements of the business.
.1415
We know that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development are and will be putting aside, year in and year out, an annual sum of about $5 billion drawn from the premiums of employees and employers. It is easy to predict that employees and employers who have to pay out these amounts will be concerned about the use that is made of them and about the size of the accumulated fund. They will wonder whether they are getting what they want or not.
When the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that this reserve is constituted so as to be able to meet a shortfall when times are harder, during lean years, he is telling employers and employees that they will benefit from it. I find this conduct proper.
However, when he does not reveal how far this accumulation will go, he is telling employees and employers at the same time that, if they benefit, it may not all they want, that he may also benefit, perhaps even more so. This will induce the players - employers and employees - to seek justice for themselves. However, this is not what we want. This is not the effect we are aiming for.
There are many articles whose harmful effects we must determine from the player's point of view. Parliament can legislate in any field and in any way. This is our responsibility and our duty. We have the power to do so under the Constitution and by virtue of our belonging to the House of Commons. However, it is not because we have this power that society will necessarily recognize that laws are justified or even just. Unfortunately, in other countries and perhaps even here, what is legal has not always been just.
We therefore have a duty not only to legislate, but also to do so appropriately and justly. To do so, we must take the time to do it correctly. Five minutes is not enough, 10 minutes is not enough. Fifteen minutes is not enough in the case of certain clauses. I'm convinced that there are people around this table who will have something to say on one clause or another for much longer than the time that could collectively be allocated to them at this time.
I consider, and I am sure this is the case for each of my colleagues, that we are all, each and everyone of us, able to make a valuable contribution to the debate. However, to do so, we must not feel pressed by time. If the matter were urgent ... The railways are currently on strike; we can't allot ourselves three months for discussion because we must attend to the most urgent matters first. I would say this is a situation in which we must choose between a few harmful effects and imminent disaster. We'll choose the lesser of two evils.
We are not in the middle of a national emergency here. We are in a situation in which we can afford to take the time to do things well. Doing things well sometimes means not keeping track of one's time.
.1420
I am pleased that my colleagues have listened to me with an entirely relative, but nevertheless real degree of attention. I know, because I know them and respect them, that they are serious about finding a constructive and appropriate solution to the problem we have before us, which will enable us in the weeks to come to do the work we have to do.
Before closing, I would like to tell you, as my colleague Mr. Crête did, about a question that occurred to me when I read Bill C-31. And I would appreciate a member of the party in power proposing to put his name on the list of speakers to eventually answer this question and to give us his point of view.
We know that Part III of Bill C-31 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act by reducing the maximum amount of benefits from $445 to $413 per week, retroactive to January 1, 1996. And we also know that this same Part III sets the maximum weekly insurable earnings at $750, or $39,000 annually, once again retroactive to January 1, 1996.
However, while this committee is working on Bill C-12, we see content in Bill C-31 that is identical to that in Bill C-12 and which, consequently, not only appears to presume, but actually presumes on the decisions of this committee. I would not want to appear sensitive, but isn't this committee entitled to wonder why its conclusions are being anticipated? Would it not have been more respectful of the members of this committee to await their conclusions before inserting them in Bill C-31?
Of course, and I'm making a very brief aside, if we came to different conclusions, it would be possible to move an amendment to Bill C-31, but it would have to be in effect.
All this leads to an unfortunate degree of complexity because we see the debating time reduced to five short minutes, which is inconceivable, and we see the debate itself structured and blocked by the content of C-31 respecting maximum benefits and maximum weekly earnings.
You will therefore understand that my Bloc québécois colleagues, and I also think those of the Reform Party, and I are concerned about the manner in which the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill may be undertaken in a context in which it appears that the decisions in one case are being made in advance and, in the other case, must be made within a time period that does not allow for thought, discussion, debate, exchange or a sufficiently improved result.
I could clearly speak at far greater length, and you know it. It is also clear that others after me could speak even longer.
.1425
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I know you can speak far longer, but in keeping with the rest of the members on your side.... You have spoken for more than an hour now.
Mr. de Savoye: You're not serious.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Just to let you know, you've been speaking for more than an hour.
Mr. Allmand: You didn't think you were that good.
Mr. Nault: You haven't said anything yet.
Mr. de Savoye: If you had listened, you would have an opinion.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I said I could speak far longer, that my colleagues could do so and that others here will be able to do so.
[English]
Our fundamental objective is to talk purposefully on every one of those clauses. Five minutes on some of them will be way too much. You know how it works on a clause-by-clause. But on some other of those clauses, it would be way too little.
Having a single rule for all this is not useful. There should be other means for you, as the government majority, to propose to this committee. As it is your responsibility by being in the government, I expect you to propose something to this committee on which we can all agree. I hope it will be very soon for all of us.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you; I appreciate your -
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I asked to have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: I have a question.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We still have two speakers on our list, Madam Brown and Mr. Dubé. This is the third time around.
Mrs. Brown: Madam Chairman, I have heard questions a number of times today from the Liberal side of the room regarding the subamendment and the whole issue of time.
I want to go back to the date of the minister's presentation to the standing committee on March 27, 1996, when he brought forward the issues surrounding the enhanced claimant assistance services as well as the increased sanctions for fraud.
It is my understanding that these are proposals coming from the minister. Indeed, we've really not had, in my view, the necessary time allocation to deal with these. At the same time, we have also received a briefing document, which I would say has been masterfully undertaken by the political and social affairs division and the law and government division. This is an excellent document. In this, we have 131 pages of recommendations.
It would seem to me that in order for us to justify any kind of a debate, five minutes of allocation, which is what we have been provided by the Liberals on the committee, really is hardly what I would consider to be a responsible action by any parliamentarian.
Consider the timing of these, as well. We had the minister's presentation on March 27, 1996. We had the details of his proposals, as given on March 27, presented to us on April 23, 1996. And the date on the research branch document is April 11, 1996. I question, at this point, even the minister's full review of these 131 pages of recommendations in the space of just a matter of days, within which time these documents have been prepared and presented.
Historically, the House of Commons, in my view, has much to teach us. Going back to Hansard in 1990, there was a very interesting debate that took place on a question of privilege. It was during the discussions on the GST. It was a closure motion that indeed raised many issues of privilege over the course of an evening and very late into the night. I want to highlight some of that, because it has a great deal of relevance -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Was that a standing committee or was that in the House?
.1430
Mrs. Brown: It was a standing committee. There were some elements that I found most interesting and would like to share with you and put into the record. They certainly do provide some interesting perspectives on parliamentary procedure as well as on using parliamentary procedure to advantage.
This was an interesting notation during this whole discussion in the Standing Committee on Finance that took place on March 20, 1990. The comment was:
- A committee chairman is elected by the committee. Like the Speaker, he is the servant of the
body that elected him or her. The chairman is accountable to the committee, and that committee
should be the usual venue where his or her conduct is pronounced upon, unless and until the
committee chooses to report to the House, which this committee has not yet opted to do. That is
the tradition of the Canadian House of Commons.
Because the goods and services tax has been an issue over the last couple of days, this next section will also be of interest to the committee with respect to the issue of time:
- If, in the course of proceedings in committee, members on the government side believe that
there is an abuse of the committee taking place, if members on the government side believe that
there is a filibuster under way that has to be stopped - and we in this party readily concede that
we were attempting to do what we could to lead the opposition to the goods and services tax in
the finance committee and to use every legal means of doing so; that is what we were doing in
accordance with the laws and precedents of this House....
There was a quote during this discussion from the Hansard of April 14, 1987, which pertains particularly to this issue of democratic procedures. I would like to read this into the record because it also has relevance before the discussions and deliberations we've had here:
- It is essential to our democratic system. The controversial issue should be debated at reasonable
length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con
and the reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to
enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the
decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the
majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They
provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a
means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to
the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the
total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of
the system.
I think it's important once again to state that in the fairness of debate and discussion, the clause-by-clause is deserving of more than just five minutes. It's unfortunate that this was even suggested yesterday, because I do believe that it has been a reason, and certainly a significant reason, behind the ensuing tensions of this committee.
Finally, I would like to talk about the authority that binds procedures. That actually does affect the Minister of Human Resources Development. This is a very interesting note on which I will end, and perhaps then Mr. Dubé would like to continue his discussion. This was made to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 8, 1984. The quote is as follows:
- Members will understand and appreciate that there were certain provisions and there are certain
provisions under the rules whereby if the government deemed it appropriate to establish some
kind of allocation or regime of allocation or limitation of the debate, it was open to the minister
to go to the House to obtain some authority in that regard, which would, if it were obtained, of
course, be binding on the procedures in this committee.
In my view, Mr. Boudria, in his role this morning as whip, to come and invoke closure - and I may be wrong - contravened some of his own obligations as whip, if indeed it is the obligation and responsibility of the minister to go to the House to obtain from the House of Commons a ruling on this issue.
After having said and done all of that, Madam Chair, I believe it would be binding on the basis of a vote in the House of Commons as to whether or not we are limited in terms of our debate in this House committee.
I bring those forward for the edification of my colleagues around the table. There were elements of this of which I was not aware as well. I feel it's very important that when we get into any kind of public debate that will include our constituents, everyone understand that there were rules of the House that permitted the nature of this debate and that it was not necessarily to paralyse one side or the other. The majority also has procedures that it can use, but so do we within the construct and confines of the laws and proceedings of the House of Commons.
Madam Chair, I have had my say, short and sweet as they say, and I'll now hand it over to the next speaker. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you for your intervention.
We'll move to the next speaker on our list, and that is Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I heard Mrs. Brown's remarks and I must say that, as a result of their research efforts, we found the argument of a chairman which essentially stated what has just been said and which confirms the accuracy of the remarks that have just been made.
I also entirely approved of your arguments when you spoke of Mr. Boudria's remarks.
But what is important is the question of time. We were in the process of debating the bill clause by clause.
I say that because there are new members who must occasionally be reminded of what we do here.
So we were debating the bill clause by clause and we were considering the definitions of clause 2, which were very important because they were going to have an influence on all the rest of the bill, when, through its parliamentary secretary, the government suddenly made a motion to reduce debating time on each clause to five minutes.
I would like to make a demonstration to show the parliamentary secretary something. We had almost finished with clause 2, and I'm going to skip clauses 3 and 4 because some of my colleagues have previously had the opportunity to speak about it.
I'm therefore going to cite the example of clause 5 so that we can assess the time necessary to consider a clause and to see whether five minutes is sufficient.
I cite clause 5:
5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is
(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;
(b) employment in Canada as described in paragraph (a) by Her Majesty in right of Canada;
(c) service in the Canadian Forces or in a police force;
(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5); and
(e) employment in Canada of an individual as the sponsor or co-ordinator of an employment benefits project.
(2) Insurable employment does not include
(a) employment of a casual nature other than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business;
.1440
(b) the employment of a person by a corporation if the person controls more than 40% of the voting shares of the corporation;
(c) employment in Canada by Her Majesty in right of a province;
(d) employment in Canada by the government of a country other than Canada or of any political subdivision of the other country;
(e) employment in Canada by an international organization;
(f) employment in Canada under an exchange program if the employment is not remunerated by an employer that is resident in Canada;
(g) employment that constitutes an exchange of work or services;
(h) employment excluded by regulations made under subsection (6); and
(i) employment if the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length.
Here I draw your attention to the fact that there is something for discussion.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(i),
(a) the question of whether persons are not dealing with each other at arm's length shall be determined in accordance with the Income Tax Act;
So here's another statute that has to be looked at.
(b) if the employer is, within the meaning of that Act, related to the employee, they are deemed to deal with each other at arm's length if the Minister of National Revenue is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length.
(4) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations for including in insurable employment
(a) employment outside Canada or partly outside Canada that would be insurable employment if it were in Canada;
(b) the entire employment of a person who is engaged by one employer partly in insurable employment and partly in other employment;
(c) employment that is not employment under a contract of service if it appears to the Commission that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, persons employed in that employment are similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, persons employed under a contract of service;
(d) employment in Canada by Her Majesty in right of a province if the government of the province waives exclusion and agrees to insure all its employees engaged in that employment;
(e) employment in Canada by the government of a country other than Canada or of any political subdivision of the other country if the employing government consents;
(f) employment in Canada by an international organization if the organization consents; and
(g) the tenure of an office as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan.
So this is another statute.
(5) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, make regulations for including in insurable employment the business activities of a person who is engaged in a business, as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
(6) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations for excluding from insurable employment
(a) any employment if it appears to the Commission that because of the laws of a country other than Canada a duplication of contributions or benefits will result;
(b) the entire employment of a person who is engaged by one employer partly in insurable employment and partly in other employment;
(c) any employment if it appears to the Commission that the nature of the work performed by persons employed in that employment is similar to the nature of the work performed by persons employed in employment that is not insurable employment;
(d) the employment of a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty and whose remuneration is paid directly or by the member to the order;
.1445
(e) any employment in which persons are employed hardly at all or for nominal remuneration; and
What is nominal and what is not?
An hon. member: That's not clear.
Mr. Dubé:
(f) any employment provided under regulations made under section 24 or under employment benefits.
(7) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations defining, for the purposes of this section, the expressions ``casual nature'', ``government'', in relation to a government of a country other than Canada or of a political subdivision of the other country, and ``international organization''.
In 12 minutes, I have just read only one clause. If I wanted to ask questions, I would begin to do so at this point. The document provided by the officers was fairly well done. On the backs of the pages are indicated the new points, the old points and those that merely involve stylistic changes.
There are an enormous number of changes. When it comes to what is excluded and what is included in insurable employment, these are not trivial matters.
Last year, nearly $3 million was paid in unemployment insurance benefits.
An hon. member: That's not negligible!
Mr. Dubé: We know that more than 116,000 persons were entitled to benefits for a certain length of time. Afterward, upon audits and objections by the government, they no longer were entitled. Those persons were even told that they had acted fraudulently, whereas the text of the current act, that regulating the current program, was not clear.
Fraud represented only 25 percent of the cases. The other 75 percent were errors. If I know how to count: 116,000 - let's round it up to 120,000 - multiplied by four, equals 480,000 cases submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The definition of insurable earnings and guaranteed benefit: everything is there.
Under the present unemployment insurance program, you are insurable or you are not, you are entitled or you are not. Everything is there.
We want to change this. The parliamentary secretary claimed to say ... I read only clause 5; I took 12 minutes to do it without making any comments. I have just used 15 minutes, Madam Chair. Five minutes is therefore not enough.
Another question regarding time concerns the time that was allocated to us to consider the bill in suitable fashion. We did not have enough time and my colleague from Hochelaga - Maisonneuve will explain why in his turn when he takes the floor after me. For my part, I'm going to talk about the studies provided by the government.
First I'm going to discuss the report entitled Seasonal Employment and Repeated Use of Unemployment Insurance.
An honourable member: That's the worst one.
Mr. Dubé: I glanced at it, and, although I'm not too bad at mathematics ... The other day, just in reading the tables provided by the officials, I found two errors in the first without even using a calculator, just in calculating by hand: 30 million for Quebec, 20 million for British Columbia.
On page 25 of the report I am speaking of, I'm going to give you an example of complicity. We're not permitted in the House, but here we aren't subject to the same regulations. So I'm going to show it to you. In the formula on page 25, ``R'' means ...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé, it seems to me that if we look at the procedures we've been following on the committee, when we say we do a five-minute round, we mean a five-minute debate. I'm not too sure about your twelve-minute and five-minute and fifteen-minute discussions.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: No, this isn't in that connection, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): It seems to me that the initial motion says that the committee will limit the study of each clause of the bill to a five-minute debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: No. We're talking about the amendment moved by Mrs. Brown. That amendment states that the motion concerning the five minutes and the time allocation motion granted by the whip's amendment were not right.
.1450
Personally, I want to show that I'm highly receptive to Mrs. Brown's motion. I am convinced that I indeed took 12 minutes simply to read the clause. I therefore showed the parliamentary secretary that Mrs. Brown was right and that more than a week was required to consider the bill because it contains 190 clauses. I took 12 minutes just to read one clause, without asking a single question.
Again, with respect to time allocation, before the parliamentary secretary forced us to agree to the five-minute idea in making his motion, we had just received these documents on which we were examining the officers.
Now, I'm giving an example of a formula that must be understood. I won't spend too long on it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Excuse me, I'm sorry to be argumentative, but I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out that my understanding was that reading the clause and debating the clause are two different things. We were talking about five minutes to debate the clause, not read the clause.
I just wanted to clarify that. This was my understanding.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: You're perfectly right. I nevertheless maintain that, if it takes 12 minutes to read one clause, it is quite possible that ...
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, I have a point of order. In English, it reads:
[English]
``that the committee limit the study of each clause of the bill to five minutes' debate''.
[Translation]
It reads as follows in French: ``Que le comité limite l'étude de chaque article du projet de loi à cinq minutes de délibérations.''
Do the ``délibérations'', and this is the point of my question, include the reference to the clause - since reference must necessarily be made to it - or do they exclude it? Can you enlighten us on this point?
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): And why is the word ``délibérations'' in the plural?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, may I call on the proposers of the motion then to do the necessary clarification?
Mr. Nault: Madam Chair, first of all, we didn't translate that into French; the officers translated it. But the intention is that it would be debate, so whatever debate means in French, to us, debate means debate, not reading the clause into the record and then going on to debate. Why it ended up that way in the French translation.... We didn't translate it. We gave it to the head table to translate it for us. But that's the rationale that you wanted to know.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: So if I understand correctly, Madam Chair, to reassure myself in French that I correctly understood the remarks made in English, the five minutes of debate exclude the reading of the clause itself and are therefore in addition.
Mr. Allmand: Correct.
Mr. de Savoye: Note that I still claim this is too short, far too short. However, the situation has been clarified and I thank you for your remarks.
Mr. Dubé: So, in my case, at least 17 minutes would have been required.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, with your permission, I believe it is very important for the opposition ...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): So this is a point -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: It's clarification that I'm requesting. Will you allow me to speak? Moreover, I'm a bit concerned because I find you are not in as good form as the last time I saw you.
I want to take a few minutes, Madam Chair, to remind you of the excellent trip we made to Geneva. You will understand the connection I am making, Madam Chair. In Geneva, we visited the International Labour Office.
The member will recall that, at the time of that exchange, the International Labour Office inquired through its spokespersons as to the possibility of a democratic debate. If Canada is a member of the International Labour Office, it is precisely so that the convention's signatory states can each hold the broadest possible debate in their countries on issues relating to social programs. You yourself read the treaty down to its smallest details.
Madam Chair, I know that you have an international conscience, as, moreover, does the parliamentary secretary. Could you explain to me what the connection might be between your trip to Geneva in the company of the official opposition and the imposition of limits which run counter to ...
[English]
Mr. Regan: I have a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The connection is very clear.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I think that question is out of order, because I couldn't begin to cite a lot of other questions they asked us too. But that's beside the point.
.1455
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: On another point of order, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No.
Mr. Nault: Question Period was at 2 p.m. We're now into -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You missed a good question. I want to make a point of order on a very serious question, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I wouldn't want to have to rule, my friend. What is your point of order, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The point of order concerns the following. I believe that all of us here on this committee have a certain amount of experience. Isn't there a parliamentary convention ...? The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is one of the most experienced and most respectable members, indeed even one of the most clear-headed in budgetary matters, will recall that there is a parliamentary convention according to which a substantive bill that has significant bearing on the lives of individuals ...
Madam Chair, have there already been precedents where, on main bills, structural bills, substantive bills, major bills, fundamental bills, bills that have implications for the day-to-day lives of all individuals ... Is there a parliamentarian on the government majority side who could tell us whether there are precedents?
Madam Chair, the real question that arises is whether Paul Martin's father, who helped implement the major social programs of the Canadian mosaic, were here today, would he vote in favour of the government majority? I don't think so. This is really a question regarding precedents and conventions and I would like someone to give us the precedents.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you. I will allow you to address this point of order.
Mr. Allmand: Very briefly, to begin with, I discussed this at greater length this morning before the hon. member came, and I can only tell him there were similar precedents in the past, both when we were in government and in opposition.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Excuse me, Madam Chair, would you allow me to ask an additional question? The member was quite short in his answer. I would like him to be a little more explicit as to the precedents. I believe there is a convention between the parties whereby the Bloc itself has often agreed to a motion to extend ...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I'm very sorry, but we cannot keep going back over the same issues as each member comes to the table. We addressed that this morning, and I think we moved on.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, I don't carry much weight.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I would recognize Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Yes, Madam Chair, it's obvious that the opposition is out of debating points on this issue. I'd call the question on the motion, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right, we'll call the question on the subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I was speaking and I had not finished when the points of order were made. May I finish my remarks?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Will we allow the member to complete his statement? Then we'll -
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: He is entitled, Madam Chair. On a point of order, Madam Chair, isn't my colleague strictly entitled to complete his remarks in accordance with the rules of this committee? Is the committee going to rescind its rules of procedure?
Mr. Ménard: What world are we living in?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No, we're not going to stop the rules, but remember that he passed the stick over to his members.
Mr. de Savoye: That was a point of order you allowed. I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: It was a point of order.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): The chair rules now. We'll allow you to continue, Mr. Dubé. We'll ask for no interruptions at this point in time so that Mr. Dubé can complete his statement.
Mr. de Savoye, you're on the list. You'll go next. Then, having no other members on the list, at the end of Mr. de Savoye's time we hopefully will call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Pardon me, Madam Chair, on a point of order. Am I to understand that you are now closing the list? Someone else may want to be added to the list.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No, I was clear. I said we hopefully will call the question after -
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: But if someone else wants to be added, for example, one of our friends opposite, you will not prevent him from doing so.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, you are my friend. You are like a sister to me, sometimes like a mother and sometimes like a sister.
Mr. Dubé: May I continue, Madam Chair?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Continue.
Mr. Dubé: Without completely recalling the meaning of the question asked by my colleague from Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, I will emphasize that it is relevant since we are discussing a time allocation motion.
.1500
His reference to the International Labour Organization is also very appropriate in the current context.
On March 26, 1990, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Fraser, recalled a speech he had made on April 14, 1987, and I will only read part of it:
It is essential to our democratic system. The controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and the reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable the opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
I could continue at great length, but this is similar in all points to the 1984 example thatMrs. Brown gave. So there are precedents in the House and I remind the member for Hochelaga - Maisonneuve that, in 1990, the Liberals debated the GST in committee for three months.
I talked about the clause a moment ago. There are very interesting, but very complicated elements in these studies.
We have been talking for a number of hours and I could continue talking. That wouldn't bother me.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I have a point of order. They are not respecting my colleague.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I cannot imagine why the member for Lévis has been subjected to such a reaction.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, make the Liberals be quiet. The parliamentary secretary's hormones are rising; it's a known fact.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: This makes no sense. We've never seen this.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Order. Mr. Dubé has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
[English]
Mrs. Brown: Madam Chairman, I have a point of privilege to raise. I would respectfully request that the Liberals in this committee desist, stop, and cut it out.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Okay. Please.
Mrs. Brown: At the very least, please do not reference my absences from this committee. I am getting quite weary of those remarks and quite weary of those allegations. I challenge most of them where they were in January, Madam Chair, and I'm getting quite sick and tired of having that allegation thrown across the table.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right. Thank you, Ms Brown.
Mr. Easter: It wasn't a point of order, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Brown: No, it's a point of privilege, Mr. Easter. I'm sick of it.
Mr. Easter: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Brown: And that's for the record. I'm sick of it.
Mr. Easter: This is a serious point of order.
Mrs. Brown: Do you get it?
Mr. Easter: I have a serious point of order. I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we table on the records the record of attendance, and then we'll know for sure who was absent and who was not. So could we have that done by the clerk in the future, please.
Mr. Allmand: And it's not just a question of Ms Brown. It's a question of her party generally. We don't direct this at you, Ms Brown. We direct it at your party generally.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): There is a request on the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Agreed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mrs. Brown: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, I think there is a precedent that may be very dangerous.
[English]
Mrs. Brown: This isn't school, you know, Wayne.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and I have a common concern for human rights. I don't know whether they are respecting human rights in a committee such as this by taking the liberty of judging because, ultimately, this is a value judgment we are witnessing.
You are acting as though you had not realized, but I don't believe it is permissible in parliamentary terms to take the liberty of commenting on a member's attendance and absences.
You know that the member, Mrs. Brown, represents an extremely charming trend in the caucus. You need friends like Mrs. Brown in your personal lives. You should not insult her.
[English]
Mr. Proud: If you want to come and run this committee, you should have been here yesterday yourself.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Excuse me, Mr. Proud.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: I have a point of order. This is on the same point of order.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): If I judge order and decorum not to be present, we'll have to break for a few minutes. Maybe everyone is very tired and that's the reason that decorum is slipping, but I will not do this until I ask you, my colleagues, to please be respectful of each other and to please not do anything that is unparliamentary or say anything that is unparliamentary at this time.
Mr. Nault: Debate, Madam Chairman. Debate.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): There is a point of order.
.1505
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: A few moments ago, I heard a colleague strongly suggest that the clerk make a document available. Consent was then requested.
Unless I am mistaken, we have a motion before us and we cannot entertain another. The request was out of order and the clerk should ignore it. What do you think, Madam Chair?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We asked for unanimous consent and we did not have it. I presumed, in the usual parliamentary fashion, that once we did not have unanimous consent it was dropped, Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): All right. Let us go back to a speaker and let's keep our interventions to a minimum.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I have a point of privilege.
What you have just explained is an excellent illustration of the delay in simultaneous interpretation. The interpretation of your remarks never reached my ears, given the numerous exchanges around the table. I am pleased to see that you have clarified the situation both for us and for the minutes.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you.
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We are considering the time allocation motion. The amendment moved by Mrs. Brown implies that, if this motion were agreed to, we would perhaps have the time to consider these studies. I can read and count. Last Thursday, on the first table presented by the team of officers, I found two errors for a total of $50 million.
I can count, even by hand, and with a calculator as well. However, when, in the findings of a study, we are presented with formulas such as the one appearing on page 25 of the study Seasonal employment and repeated use of unemployment insurance ... We could also look at other studies, for example, page 22 of the study Interprovincial labour mobility in Canada: the role of unemployment insurance, welfare and training. We could also take Appendix A, on page 39 of the study Unemployment insurance and income redistribution: a microsimulation.
I'm citing as examples only the studies that we have at our disposal. I'm going to cite the other studies enumerated to an appendix to these studies and to which we have never had access. An evaluation of unemployment insurance was conducted by the department in the spring of 1993. Subsequently, a number of studies focused on the impact of unemployment insurance on employer behaviour. There is Unemployment insurance, temporary layoffs and recall expectations, which is highly relevant. It states that about $270 million is subject to objections and that frauds totalled $90 million. That's very significant. Here we have a paper that discusses the waiting list, the various recall cases.
Another is entitled Firm, industries and cross-subsidies: patterns in the distribution of unemployment insurance benefits and taxes. The studies on the impact of unemployment insurance on worker behaviour also include the paper entitled Qualifying for unemployment insurance: an empirical analysis of Canada, a paper prepared by the Economics Department of the University of British Columbia. Another is entitled Unemployment insurance and employment durations: seasonal and non-seasonal jobs. There are also Employment patterns and unemployment insurance, State dependence and unemployment insurance, Extension benefits based on regional unemployment rates and length of employment and Seasonal employment and repeated use of unemployment insurance.
There's also mention of macroeconomic stabiliziation through unemployment insurance: The UI system as an automatic stabilizer in Canada and Canada's employment insurance program as an economic stabilizer.
.1510
Here are a few more titles: Unemployment insurance and labour market transitions, Unemployment insurance and job-search productivity, prepared by Professor Fortin of the Department of Economics, University of Quebec at Montréal, and Effects of benefit rate reduction and changes in entitlement (Bill C-113) on unemployment job search behaviour and new job quality, which particularly concerns the effects of Bill C-113. I take the liberty of recalling that the Liberals at the time supported people who had demonstrated in the streets against the measures of Bernard Valcourt's bill. Fifty thousand demonstrators gathered in Montréal in February in temperatures of -30 degrees Celsius.
Mr. Ménard: It is moreover for that reason that they were not reelected.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chrétien stated that, if he were one day elected Prime Minister of Canada, he would never do any such thing. He was right; he did worse.
I continue with the list: Jobs excluded from the unemployment insurance system in Canada: an empirical investigation, Unemployment insurance effects of Bill C-113 on unemployment take-up rates, Implications of extending unemployment insurance coverage to self-employment and short hours work week: a micro-simulation approach - sometimes it's macro, other times it's micro - The impact of unemployment insurance on wages, search intensity and the probability of re-employment.
On the subject of unemployment insurance and welfare, we find: The interaction of UI and welfare and Job separations and the passage to unemployment and welfare benefits. I could continue because the list is long. I only read this appendix; I could read others.
You will note that all of them contain nice formulas. I'll spare you. I can't even manage to read these mathematical formulas: MAX multiplied by U, divided by I (vi...). We multiply these figures and reach this. This is done by computer, but we are not given the results. The government would like us to proceed quickly with consideration, whereas we should pay tribute to the wisdom ofMrs. Brown of the Reform Party. The comments made concerning her saddened me. It must be recognized that if there was one member of the Reform Party who followed all the proceedings and was very much involved it was indeed Mrs. Brown. I give the floor to my other colleagues. You'll note that I have raised two new points; I didn't repeat my previous remarks.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair ...
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye: Each clause should be debated and discussed for various lengths of time. I could illustrate this more easily if I had a blackboard, but I will trace it out with my hands as though I had one. On this blackboard, we could indicate, as in a histogram, that is to say using vertical bars, the time required for the consideration of each clause. We would realize that certain clauses require only very brief discussion, whereas others would require more time. By arranging small bars in order of size, we would eventually obtain a kind of curve.
Remember your happy days in high school and integral calculus? If we took the integral of that curve, we would then obtain its area, that is the are under the curve, and represent the total time devoted to consideration of the bill. However, that curve is indeed curved. We could obtain the same area using a straight line parallel to the X axis, which would indicate that an equal time would be devoted to consideration of each of the clauses of the bill.
However, the motion that we are currently considering falls under this second category, a flat arithmetic that would not only reduce the duration horizontally, but also flatten it.
.1515
You see that my segments, my small vertical lines are flattened at five minutes; we multiply five minutes by some 178 articles and we tell you: Here's the time we need. Common sense dictates that, on the contrary, we should consider each clause of the bill on the basis of its merits and tend toward this curve whose integral would lead us to a number of debating sessions which should not extend beyond June 22, as the member for Calgary-Southeast moved. This would require that this committee be open to a debate. God knows we can hold a debate, but it must be held openly; that is what we must now tend toward.
If the public learned from this evening's, tomorrow's, tomorrow afternoon's or the weekend newspapers that the one and only reason why we are sitting here and speaking since yesterday is because the government party wants to limit debate on each clause of Bill C-12, an Act respecting employment insurance in Canada, to five minutes, what would they say? Put yourselves in the public's shoes.
What do you think the public would think? I would never be ashamed or embarrassed by what I am doing here today because the public will understand that it is fundamentally their interests that are at stake.
[English]
And they know what the stakes are.
[Translation]
I would appreciate, and I think the public would also appreciate the government party's reacting quickly before the media make an issue out of this matter, the consequences of which will clearly not harm the opposition. I can understand that the government party wishes to limit debate in order to meet its political timetable, but I find that limiting it to five minutes per clause is simply going too far. Some could claim that it's brazen, although I don't dare use such words.
If by some great misfortune, we could not convince the government party to request unanimous consent to withdraw this nevertheless regrettable motion, no doubt made in good faith but regrettable, and that it stood and applied, what would we conclude? What would the public conclude?
I would not be embarrassed because I would not at all be afraid to explain my conduct. However, the opposition would not hesitate to carefully explain and expose the government party's attitude.
Being familiar with the common sense of my colleagues opposite when I speak to them one by one, I wonder how it is ...
[English]
Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): You should have gone for the leadership.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I find the spirit my colleagues are showing risible.
.1520
It nevertheless remains that if debate is limited, the opposition will not be embarrassed at having made every attempt to instill better sentiments in our colleagues opposite, both collectively and individually. What is most dangerous is that the public will receive the bill with scepticism, which will not facilitate the act's implementation.
[English]
Your attitude at this moment is undermining the implementation of this bill. When this law comes into effect the population will find it credible insofar as the process that delivers it is credible, and what is going on right now seriously undermines this credibility.
I'm calling on each one of you to reflect on this and to try to find a solution that will allow for the correct processing of every one of the clauses.
[Translation]
If at the end of this digression in our consideration of the bill, you win and debate is limited both in its duration for each clause and in total time, I ask you how the public will react when the harmful effects I have previously spoken of are felt. How will the public react to a bill that creates problems? If this bill is not amended, it will create problems.
If we don't do our work decently, if we don't take the time, this bill will cause problems. If we don't invest the resources necessary to achieve an adequate bill, this will cause problems. When those problems become felt, you know what the opposition will say. We denounce, we will denounce and we will continue to denounce the procedural defect that we are currently being exposed to.
How will the public react? They will be disappointed and will treat the system in a way that some will characterize as fraud. It won't be gratuitous fraud; it will be the consequence of our actions, which in turn will constitute an intellectual fraud, a fraudulent process. Let us be aware that what is at stake around the table today is the government's credibility.
Mr. Ménard: What's left of it.
Mr. de Savoye: I ask you to do what is necessary for the public, who need to believe in our institutions, do not lose what little confidence they still have in the work we are doing. I believe my colleague wants to take over. His remarks, I hope, will enable my colleagues opposite to think more profoundly and come to an appropriate conclusion. I give the floor to my colleague, who, I have no doubt, will make excellent use of it.
.1525
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): It's almost like a relay here. Let's pass the baton. Monsieur Ménard, the baton is yours.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I would first like to tell you that we missed you during the brief time you were absent, but you had a worthy representative.
Furthermore, if you conducted a poll of the 200 and some parliamentarians, you could see that I am considered as someone rather reasonable, mature and nice and that I have no enemies in this House, with the notable exception of Ms Skoke.
I even take as a witness our parliamentary secretary, who knows how cooperative a man I can be when the situation is appropriate.
I would also like to take a few minutes to recall the excellent trip that we two took that enabled us to consolidate our working relations. We were in a situation that was quite conducive to cooperation.
But what is happening today?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Speak to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We are in an unhappy situation and you have before you a man who is embittered because we cannot imagine that the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons are preparing to bring together on the same floor all the parliamentarians who have been here since the Second World War. Moreover, I suspect that you will be in attendance and that you will wear the pretty suit that you bought in Geneva and that fits you like a glove.
But for the moment, what must be kept in mind is that we have before us a motion to limit time. I must tell you that, even in my wildest dreams, I would never have thought you could have acted in this way in a British parliamentary system in which the opposition has a role, the government has a role and we are all elected members. Moreover, how can I not remind you that I myself was elected with a 16,000-vote majority and that I handily defeated the Liberal candidate and will do so again? So send me a good candidate to Hochelaga - Maisonneuve and I promise to dispose of him easily.
But what is happening? Why don't the parliamentarians of the government majority, such as the parliamentary secretary, want us to take the time to discuss this most important program? And here I'll put a small, skill-testing question to the Liberal members: What was the first amendment to the Constitution to be unanimously passed? Wasn't it the one on the establishment of an unemployment insurance program?
We're not dealing with something trivial here. It is true that this government has at times introduced rather insignificant bills. It is true that each of us can give examples of such bills, but we have to be aware of what is really going on at this point. You yourself, Madam Chair, who are a former director, you who have been responsible for hundreds of individuals, you who are the first person of colour to have been elected to the House of Commons, you who are sensitive to poverty, could you sleep this evening, could you sleep a profound and restorative sleep while something this serious is happening?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Is no one going to come to my defence?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You want to impose a time limit for something as fundamental as this? I'm saddened. God knows that I had a childhood that was not easy and that I have had my share of trials in life, but I would never have been able to imagine finding myself in this kind of situation! Yes, Madam the member for Vancouver! Furthermore, I have some good news for you: I'm going to your riding in June and I'm going to give a speech there. So don't force me to mention the horrible things that are happening here if you want to remain the popular woman you are in your riding.
Nothing would make me sadder, nothing would upset me more than to see that it is impossible for us to agree among intelligent parliamentarians, among parliamentarians who have a mandate to represent the people. Is this time limit rational? I'm sure the member for Vancouver-East cannot in all conscience subscribe to a motion such as this.
I'm going to say what I mean by that. Lastly, it all began 400 years ago, when people thought that words meant something in a democracy. And we believe it too, as does the member for Lévis, and a certain number of members who are on your left, because on the right, things are taking a turn for the worse. So we have tried to move matters along during the hours that were set aside for consideration of this bill. And I also think, Madam Chair, that you can't want to join with me in paying tribute to the member for Lévis and the member for Mercier for the excellent work they have done.
.1530
How can we be so lacking in gratitude? I say gratitude out of respect for you, because it's not the most appropriate word.
What will this time limit give us? What will it give us in terms of democracy or freedom of expression when you will one day have to put this motion to a vote?
But perhaps we should keep in mind that, as the official opposition party, we have always been responsible each time we have had the opportunity. I can give you a host of examples.
I remember the Committee on Human Rights, and I believe that you, Madam, were present at that time. I don't want to name you, but I do believe you were present. You therefore remember our solid cooperation on this highly interesting bill on employment equity.
When I write my memoirs, I will talk about what employment equity is. It is a bill for the Public Service on which we cooperated in a sustained manner with the member whose discretion in the House in well known and whose name I have forgotten.
How can you think that we are going to let this motion to limit time pass?
But what could happen? I put the question to the member. We are in a situation in which the economy of the working world is changing. The great difference between the present economy and the one in which we grew up is the number of part-time jobs. And those part-time jobs clearly constitute a major phenomenon.
I'm going to cite the example of my father, whom you may one day visit, Madam Chair. My father is approaching 60 years of age. He is a respectable man who raised five children, including myself. He is an engaging man. But what is the difference between my father and me, apart from the difference of some 160 pounds between us? The difference lies in the fact that my father has always held the same job, with the same business, and that he was never subjected to what is called continued training.
I'm 33 years old now and I can say that I have already had the opportunity to learn what continued training is.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Excuse me, I fail to see the relevance of your father and your age to the discussion on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You don't like my father? You want to vote on that? Who likes my father? I'm asking for a vote, Madam Chair.
[English]
Mr. O'Reilly: Send us a picture; we want to see what he looks like.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, I assure you that the connection is very relevant because the connection is continued training. Throughout the debates in this House, the Minister has told us that we were dealing with a bill that was going to give people the tools to enhance their employability in the job market.
Where in this bill are the tools that will actually help people find jobs? If this bill is so good, if it is excellent, if the Liberals are not afraid of it and are not afraid of its content, why impose a time limit?
Madam Chair, when you were a school principal, you had considerable success, and I don't think you would ever have allowed debate to be limited because you were proud of what you were doing in your school and because you were a leader in your community.
When you cannot defend your ideas, when you cannot debate on substance, you fall back onto form. And when you fall back onto form, you take delaying measures, unacceptable measures, detestable measures, coercive measures such as those the government is taking against us.
Once again, I think we must come back to essentials and mention that, since 1940, hundreds of Canadians have taken an interest in social programs, starting with the father of the present Minister of Finance. And don't go telling me there is no connection between Paul Martin and his father and what is before you today. We are acting in a manner perfectly consistent with the principles that have been established and promoted.
Is there a single Liberal who thinks that Paul Martin's father would accept a limit such as the one the Liberals are moving today? No, and I even believe that the Minister of Finance is uncomfortable on this point.
A few words about one your colleagues whom I respect, Don Boudria. Has he taken part in the work of this committee?
Mr. Dubé: This morning.
.1535
Mr. Ménard: Then that must have been an extremely intense moment in parliamentary affairs. I would like to ask you, Madam Chair, whether the member imposed his point of view on this.
Mr. Dubé: Yes.
Mr. Ménard: Then, Madam Chair, we're going to move on to something else. If the member compelled us to do what he wanted, I would essentially like to recall that that's the way politics is. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from this, and I am now coming to the philosophical portion of my remarks, Madam Chair.
We are members because we have been chosen. Being a member, Madam Chair, is like having a loving relationship. You must have had several. And what is there in common between being a member and having a loving relationship? In both cases, Madam Chair, we are chosen.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I am looking for relevancy.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Pardon me?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): I am looking for you to be relevant to this discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, I'm getting there. If you see no connection between unemployment and love, your sensitivity for the poor disappoints me.
So, Madam Chair, I'm coming to something very important. I don't think the committee should be narrow-minded.
We are all members. We have all been chosen, each of us in his own community. You will tell me, and it is true, that certain conventions were more difficult than others. But we are a democratic party and we do not fear conventions or debates. The connection will be established by the demonstration I've just made, Madam Chair. Because we don't fear debate and we don't want limits. We don't want limits, but, on the contrary, we do want to be able to express ourselves in the liberal tradition.
If you had before you a dictionary of the history of philosophy, you would see that there is something sacred in liberalism. I myself have taken a number of courses on liberalism with varying degrees of interest, depending on the professor, but I think that, being a former principal, you fully understand the meaning of pedagogy. When you are a liberal, as the people opposite us pride themselves in being, you get up and show it. For a liberal, the best way to counter an idea in a democracy is to express a better one. And that is what we have done throughout these proceedings. We have not had better members than the one for Lévis, the one for Mercier, the one for Kamouraska, whose only wish is to improve the bill. We think that all ideas carry equal weight. We are experienced people and the Canadian public are an experienced public. But who could have expected the Liberals would be imprudent enough to want to impose a time limit on us?
Lastly, I would like to say that I have followed a number of cases on parliamentarism, Madam Chair, and that I am not an intellectual innocent. I remember getting an A on the 45, 90, 120 or 200 hours that I took on liberalism. I am not sure that all Liberals would have passed that course. That's why I'm trying to find precedents and why I am making an intellectual effort to remember the important moments of a society, not just Canadian society. I'm trying to find moments in parliamentary life in Great Britain, France and Italy when governments were able to place such a limit on the official opposition.
This isn't serious because we have many things to say about this bill. Furthermore, I'm going to say a few words about Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, where, despite our differences, Madam Chair, you will always be welcome.
I represent a working neighbourhood. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce knows this because he's also a Montréal member. Hochelaga - Maisonneuve was an independent town from 1883 to 1918. It was a prosperous town, Madam the member for Vancouver, and it was even said to be the Pittsburgh of Canada.
Do you know why I take the trouble to mention that? Because Hochelaga - Maisonneuve was a prosperous working town where there were textile and shoe factories. Furthermore, if you walk around in Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, you can see and take in the town's heritage a few feet from my office.
.1540
So I represent a working riding. I hope that none of the members imagines that none of the citizens from my neighbourhood will one day or another be likely to receive unemployment insurance.
I will add this, Madam Chair: it is because I represent a working riding and because I am the son of a man who worked by the sweat of his brow that today I cannot allow time limits to be placed on the debate.
What exactly is the government afraid of? That is the question we ask. We are democrats and accept discussion. Do you have an unhappy memory of previous debates? Do you have in mind a single example that you could cite of an exchange with one of my colleagues that was not pleasant? Certainly not, Madam Chair, because we are each of us nicer than the next.
We are here to improve the bill. We want to work, Madam Chair. We like parliamentary committee work. I'm a member of three of these committees. Moreover, I'm going to be late for the next one. I will have to leave you shortly, but the good news, Madam Chair, is that I'm going to come back. I'm going to come back and we're going to continue because we believe that it is important that the debate be conducted.
The concern I have - and that I can't prevent myself from expressing - is the eventual fate of part-time workers. What will happen to seasonal workers, Madam Chair? What will happen to the heads of single-parent families?
I also have another question. Can we speak with the officers?
Mr. Dubé: No, no.
Mr. Ménard: Too bad! I would have liked to speak to the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps one day he will invite me to speak with him in Parliament. The question I would like to put to him ... This is proof that we have not reached maturity in our discussions. The subject was not exhausted.
Ultimately, we must see that there are still things to say about this bill. I have a question to ask. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary has some experience in this field. Perhaps he has even reflected on it somewhat, despite his many tasks. I know that he is a dedicated man.
What balance will have to be struck between big businesses, highly capital-intensive businesses and small businesses? In the parliamentary secretary's view, what is the bill we are considering today offering with regard to premiums?
I could ask my question in another way and take the parliamentary secretary, who is daydreaming a bit, partly as a result of fatigue, by surprise. I ask him how can it be explained that, in a society such as ours, we have lowered the ceiling for premiums? To how much? We have lowered it to $39,000, Madam Chair. Isn't that something ... We don't want this kind of limit. We don't want it.
Mr. Dubé: No.
Mr. Ménard: What we want is for big businesses to have to pay more than what is requested. I would have liked to speak with the parliamentary secretary about the rational nature of the measure contained in the bill, Madam Chair, but you tell me there is not enough time. Very well, but I'm sure that there'll be a next time.
This isn't the only question we have. We have also asked questions about part-time work. The most important question that should have been asked is no doubt the following: Wouldn't it have been desirable for the reform that has been put before us to be designed and implemented after establishing a set of conditions promising full employment? That's what we would have liked after we heard the Minister start his address in the House by comparing the situation of the 1970s, when the unemployment insurance program cost $4 billion, with that of today, where it costs $14 billion. What member has not thought about full employment?
Madam Chair, I'm going to tell you what full employment is. Full employment is a situation that certain countries have achieved. I sense you are going to ask me for examples. I will cite a few: Norway, Denmark, which are small countries and, above all, Sweden.
I was still a student a few years ago. But, Madam Chair - and this is a point I have in common with you - I can't manage to age physically. The student Réal Ménard and the member Réal Ménard have the same physical appearance.
When I was a student, in the various economic courses that I took, we saw what conditions had to be met in order to achieve full employment. There were a few economists, who had mastered both the theory and practice, who told us that it was not possible to destabilize social programs.
.1545
Speaking of destabilization, I was about to forget a very important fact. I don't know whether the parliamentary secretary has read the Fortin report, which was commissioned by the Minister of Income Security Quebec. Roughly in the middle of that report - if the parliamentary secretary is interested, I will hand him a copy - it states that since the successive changes made to the program since 1990, there has been an off-loading of $1 billion.
An off-loading of $1 billion dollars: that means several zeros. When you write one billion on a blackboard, you have to write more than three zeros and even more than six. That's the concern that this bill causes us: we fear it will cause an imbalance. Is the parliamentary secretary interested in reading the Fortin report? If he reads it, he will understand why Quebec is rightly concerned by this reform.
I'll come back to it once again. I'll come back to it by saying that, in a few weeks, we will begin reforming the Labour Code. We will be present at the discussions surrounding this reform of the Labour Code. However, there is a connection between the Labour Code and unemployment insurance.
I am forced to leave you because I have to go to the Subcommittee on AIDS. I know that my colleagues will take over. Now if I were asked, I would stay. If my colleagues applaud, I'll stay.
[English]
Mr. O'Reilly: My heart is broken.
An hon. member: Ah!
An hon. member: You're just getting to the point.
Mr. Ménard: Applaud, applaud!
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ménard: If you applaud, I will stay here, Madame la présidente.
Some hon. members: No, no!
Mr. O'Reilly: Stay, stay.
An hon. member: Ah!
Mrs. Lalonde: I am sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, what ...
[English]
An hon. member: Pierre has a new leader.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: What can be more comforting in a democracy than to be the subject of a clearly expressed desire! What can be more charming in a democracy than to know one is desired!
Now I must unfortunately leave you because, as you know, an international conference on AIDS is going to be held at which I hope to be present. Perhaps I could speak to you for a few moments about the connection we want to establish between the program that we are proposing and persons suffering from AIDS, but I would be afraid of being late.
My colleague, the member for Lévis, is going to take over. The member for Bourassa also has a few things to say. Perhaps I can come back immediately after by subcommittee meeting. If I'm asked, it will be a pleasure for me to come back.
Madam Chair, could you tell us whether the Liberals intend to withdraw their motion?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Thank you very much.
[English]
We'll go on to the next.... Mr. Nault.
Mr. Ménard: I'll be back, I'll be back.
An hon. member: Oh, good.
An hon. member: We'll wait with bated breath.
Mr. Nault: Madam Chairman, I'd like to move that we adjourn the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: He's moving that we adjourn and I think I agree.
Ms Lalonde: Why adjourn?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We have a motion on the floor that we adjourn until....
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Until what time?
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua (York North): The call of the chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): The call of the chair? Adjourn?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Is unanimous consent required?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Do we have to call the vote? Yes.
Mrs. Brown: Yes, and I would like to have a recorded vote, with names.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We have to call the votes.
Mrs. Brown: And I have a question. How will we be apprised when the committee is going to reconvene? How will be be notified - by phone, by plane, by carrier pigeon, how?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Not by carrier pigeon: I don't think that is an option. I think we'll probably go with the standard procedure through e-mail, fax or phone calls.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: If the Chairman can sit down at one of the ...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Let's deal with this.
Mr. Nault: Madam Chairman, there's a motion on. It's a recorded vote, so let's do it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): It's a recorded vote, so could you please.... Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I have a point of order ...
[English]
Mr. Nault: Madam Chairman, there's no -
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The motion was put in disorderly circumstances.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): No. Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I apologize. This is a point of order. I have been here since this morning and it is true that I'm tired, but I would like to understand what is going on. Everything is happening so quickly.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Dubé, we're not going to get into debate right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: No, but this is a point of order, Madam Chair.
.1550
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): We have a motion before us for adjournment. We're calling the question on this, and if there are any explanations, you'll get them.
We are on the question on adjournment right now. You can vote in whatever fashion.
They want a recorded vote, so you have to go through the list.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: We are entitled to three votes. May I replace myself? Do you have the pink forms for replacing a replacement?
[English]
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.