Bill C-316 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration)

This enactment amends the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act that allow for qualifying periods and benefit periods to be extended as the result of time spent by the claimant in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution so that they apply only if the claimant is not found guilty of the offence for which he or she was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

On a point of order, I think we should be very clear that Bill C-316 focuses on the Employment Insurance Act and modifications to that act with respect to who is eligible for it or not. That is how the questions should be directed.

My general impression is that questions are being formulated and the general discussion is about a much broader area than that covered by this bill, which specifically speaks to changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

[Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you.

My name is Kim Pate. I'm with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and I thank you for inviting us on behalf of the membership board and the clientele we work with. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-316, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

As you may or may not be aware, our organization has a membership of 26 local community-based organizations, all of which are governed by boards of directors who are volunteers. Many of our local societies also provide services on the basis of voluntary service, as well as contracts with corrections and other services. What you may not be aware of is that our organization works not just with those who are in the criminal justice system, having been criminalized and imprisoned, but also works with the most marginalized and victimized--women and girls. Those of you who are from the western part of the nation will know that in some areas, Elizabeth Fry Societies provide the only victim services to some communities. It is in this context that we add our submissions.

The main concern we have—and we share the concerns of the John Howard Society of Canada, so I won't repeat all of those—is that the Employment Insurance Act provides an insurance scheme for those who have paid into it and invested in it. It's a federally administered insurance scheme, and only those who have paid into it are eligible at all to even apply for it.

The fact that individuals who are disadvantaged or marginalized or are incarcerated for all kinds of reasons, some of which are more or less within their control.... Certainly as we see some of the changes that are happening now, we're seeing it's becoming more difficult for people to survive in the community, particularly many of the women we work with. Not surprisingly, some of them end up criminalized and sometimes for fairly minor things. Those who have been hardworking, productive members of our working communities before going to prison should not be denied the benefit of the insurance that has been paid into on their behalf by them and their employers when they exit prison, if they can be found eligible.

Delaying eligibility only does that: delay an entitlement that they already have.

As Ms. Latimer has pointed out, to add a civil penalty to a criminal penalty is to actually violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to go completely against all of the principles upon which our criminal justice system is based—that the penalty is the punishment and that we should not be racking up more in addition.

The friendly amendment certainly improves on some of that. The fact that we know that anywhere from 70% to 90% of the women in provincial and territorial custody, which is where this bill will most impact individuals, are awaiting trial and may not ever be convicted makes this an even more egregious penalty and civil penalty on top of the non-criminal penalty that may result. We have concerns about that.

We also have concerns that clawing back these sorts of benefits, which are entitlements that people have paid into as an insurance scheme, actually participates in a further off-loading to provinces and territories of the cost of individuals, who might otherwise be eligible for employment insurance while they are looking for employment after they exit prison but then are unable to obtain that employment and will need to possibly avail themselves of the social assistance schemes that are provincially and territorially run. So that will add to the cost to the provinces and territories.

In summary, we're extremely concerned that this bill not pass. We think that there are already checks and balances in place to ensure that there is accountability, and that it seems to be merely an attempt to further punish individuals who, for all kinds of reasons, may find themselves in a situation of being criminalized and imprisoned. We urge the committee to recommend that this bill not be passed.

Thank you.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to be here this afternoon.

The John Howard Society of Canada is celebrating its 50th year as a community-based charity in Canada with a mission to support effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has more than 60 front-line offices across the country, with many programs and services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into their communities and to prevent crime. Our work helps make communities safe, and we're happy about that. We recognize that employment is one of the key factors in supporting the successful reintegration of offenders back into the community, and that's why I'm pleased to speak to you today about Bill C-316.

That bill proposes, as I understand it, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to remove provisions allowing for qualifying periods and benefit periods to be extended as a result of time spent by the claimant in a jail, penitentiary, or similar institution. These changes would prevent people from obtaining the benefits of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers had contributed when the legislation allowed these extensions. The proposed amendments raise concerns about fairness and effectiveness, and there are five things to which I really want to draw your attention.

First of all, as an insurance scheme, contributors should receive the benefits that were consistent with the terms in place at the time of the contribution. Both employers and employees paid into this insurance scheme while the extensions were part of the legislative framework, so they should be allowed to have the benefits that were in place when they made their contributions. This is not a government program; this is an insurance program. These people are beneficiaries, having paid into it.

Secondly, the concept of “confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution” is an overly broad concept. More than half of the people behind bars in Canada have not been convicted, nor sentenced for an offence, and thus are presumed innocent in law. This would mean that more than half of the people who lose their current statutory right to an extension are not at fault. Further, the term “other similar institution” is quite broad and could include internment camps, preventive detention, and other detentions that are not necessarily related to wrongdoing on the part of the contributor. I understand that the author of the bill is open to some amendments that would allow the extension to apply only for those held in pre-trial facilities.

The third point is connected with the legitimacy of civil penalties on top of criminal convictions. If those friendly amendments were made, it would make it very clear that the disentitlement was not directed at those who are simply incapable of working due to their involvement with the justice system, but targeted at those who were convicted of a crime. It would be a civil disability that would be added to what the criminal courts have determined is a fair and proportionate penalty for that crime. This further penalization is inconsistent with the evolution of the common law and the understanding of those in custody as being citizen-prisoners. Those under sentence retain all legal rights and responsibilities, except for the rights and responsibilities that are implicated in the carrying out of the sentence imposed by the criminal courts. The concept of outlawry, or a person being outside the scope and protections of the law because of a criminal conviction, is an antiquated notion that is subtly being reintroduced. The punishment for a criminal offence should be the sentence imposed by the criminal courts as the full and fair measure of accountability for the crime committed.

The fourth issue I'd like to raise is the impact on the criminal justice system. If Bill C-316 were amended to limit the disentitlement of employment insurance extensions to post-sentence incarceration, the implications for the criminal justice system would be quite serious. A person detained in custody prior to conviction and sentencing generally gets credit for the time served prior to the conviction and sentencing. If the pre-trial period in detention, when the accused is presumed innocent, does not limit the employment insurance extension periods but the post-conviction period does, then delays in the trial processing could result.

Bill C-316, as amended, might motivate the accused to delay the trial to accumulate pre-trial custody, which would offset the sentence imposed. While these delays would protect the claimant's employment insurance entitlements, they would exacerbate a pre-trial detention crisis in our country.

The last point I would like to make has to do with a loss of important reintegration support. One of the groups in society that have most difficulty finding employment is those who have been criminalized. Having access to employment insurance assists a highly disadvantaged group in finding employment. This proposed amendment will hinder the policy objective of promoting community safety by jeopardizing employment prospects and compromising efforts to reduce recidivism.

In conclusion, Bill C-316 would disentitle people to the benefits of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers had contributed. It would create unfairness for claimants and particularly for those who are innocent and detained. For those convicted and sentenced in the criminal court, it would amount to an additional ex post facto penalty to a criminal sentence that is dubious in law and could lead to a disproportionate penalty. Efforts to narrow the effect of this bill on post-sentence restrictions on employment insurance extension periods would lead to delays in a criminal justice system that is already in crisis. It would also undermine public safety by jeopardizing employment prospects and denying insurance payments to a vulnerable group as they seek to successfully reintegrate into the community. For these reasons, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you to oppose Bill C-316.

Thank you very much.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming out this afternoon.

My question is also for Ms. Rosenfeldt. Sometimes it's disappointing to hear the opposition say, on the one hand, we have sympathy for the victim, and then they talk about preferential treatment for offenders. Under the current legislation, convicted felons have greater access to employment insurance benefits than law-abiding citizens do. As I understand it, this bill will ensure that criminals are not given preferential treatment over hard-working Canadian families who work hard and play by the rules.

First of all, Ms. Rosenfeldt, I'd like to thank you very much for the fantastic work you have been doing for the victims of crime in this country. Too often it is the victims who need a voice in our justice system, and they need good people like you to speak up on their behalf. I think this bill, Bill C-316, in a way is doing just that: speaking up for the victims. Victims of crime often go through a difficult court process, which often re-victimizes them. They may have to take time off from work for emotional or other reasons. Perhaps their family members also have to take some time off work to support them.

Now, do you think it is a form of re-victimization for these victims to know that their attackers have wider access to the resources of this country in the form of EI than they do, and that the criminals who wrecked their lives can be eligible to collect EI despite a prison sentence of up to two years or so?

[Gregory Thomas]

Bill C-316 is a private member's bill, standing in the name of Mr. Harris, with government support.

My studies on the subject demonstrate that the maternal support system certainly has a better reputation in the developed world than the employment insurance system does. I was unaware that mothers were not entitled to receive benefits, as you stated. I will have to study the issue more closely.

Our organization strongly believes that the entire employment insurance system is in great need of an overhaul and improvement. This will certainly be a priority over the next 18 to 24 months.

As for—

[Gregory Thomas, Federal and Ontario Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Gregory Thomas. I'm the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We are Canada's largest and oldest taxpayers advocacy group. We've been around for over 20 years.

We have over 70,000 supporters across Canada. Periodically you may get e-mails or phone calls from some of our supporters on different issues. I can't think of any that come to mind this week, but our supporters are very active.

We appreciate the invitation to discuss Bill C-316. We appreciate the committee taking up this issue, because we believe the EI program is one of those things about Canada that drives just about all Canadians crazy.

I don't know if you have seen the study from the Mowat Centre, the graduate school of public policy at the University of Toronto, entitled Postal Code Lottery, or their more positive piece on EI, entitled Making it Work. We don't endorse some of the big spending ideas in the Mowat Centre's work, but they illustrate how two people working side by side in the same plant and losing their jobs on the same day can actually have vastly different outcomes on their EI, depending on where they drive home to at night. If they happen to be on the wrong side of the tracks or in the wrong postal code area, they get hooped.

Also, regionally, it's very clear that in the last recession the workers in the province of Ontario got sideswiped by the recession and got massively hooped. It was very difficult. Fewer than half of Ontarians managed to benefit from the EI program, whereas in other parts of the country there is huge participation in the EI program, with whole economies operating around how to extract maximum EI from the central government.

This bill seeks to address one very small element. There have been estimates that it's a million bucks. I think it's $186 million just in administering EI, in sending out the cheques and what have you, but this situation deals with the fact that convicted criminals are put in a category with disabled people and lactating mothers and are getting a special benefit that relates to their EI.

To the extent that a program is so complicated, convoluted, and bizarre that it does drive ordinary Canadians crazy, I think it befits Parliament to tackle it and fix it. You have 58 separate EI districts. You have these “pilot programs” that have been going on year in and year out, year after year, and it just speaks of massive unfairness.

If you look at the plight that victims of crime face and at any situation where it seems like the crown, the government, parliamentarians, and the law treat criminals better than victims, you know that these are people who very often are in desperate situations, who have been injured, who have lost a loved one, who are suffering, and who are trying to deal with an injustice. Every injustice brings despair and discouragement to the most vulnerable and the most victimized in society, so we appreciate the intent of the legislation.

We're worried about unintended side effects. Some of these labour agreements that the federal government has had with the provinces in the past bar the door for training to people who are not eligible to receive EI or collecting EI. So if you're not in the EI program, you can't get trained, for example. If all these criminals doing provincial time on short sentences, who are in remand or whatever, lose EI eligibility, does that mean they lose training eligibility, and do you make it trickier and tougher for them to go straight? That's a question you probably need to address.

The other issue is that I think it would be worthwhile for the government to order up a study of just who these characters are who manage to qualify for a year's EI while living sketchy enough lives that they manage to get convicted of something and sent away. By all accounts it's a very rare group of people. Maybe they're fraudsters operating in sketchy occupations and EI is being defrauded, or maybe these are people who are actually struggling to make a straight life for themselves.

In any case, they are such a small population that I think one thing the committee can do is find out more about them. You know, they held down a job and they paid into EI, and they're part of a very small, select part of the prisoner population who did that.

So take away those benefits, restore the fairness, yes, but find out more about who these people are and what makes them so unusual.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence]

Good afternoon.

I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to give my views, as a Canadian and on behalf of the organization Victims of Violence, pertaining to Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, referring to incarceration.

We believe this bill is clearly adopting measures to ensure that the employment insurance program is delivered effectively and fairly in a way that is most beneficial to Canadians. Bill C-316 addresses something that is fundamentally unfair; namely, that convicted criminals currently have preferential access to employment insurance benefits over law-abiding citizens.

Currently when individuals apply for employment insurance, they are evaluated as to whether they have worked enough hours in the qualifying period to receive benefits. The standard qualifying period is 52 weeks. The qualifying period can only be extended under four circumstances under the act and can only be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks.

The first extension for being incapable of work is because of “prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy”. The second extension applies if one receives some assistance under employment benefits, such as a plan from one's previous employer. The third extension relates to receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work because continuing to work could result in danger to an unborn child or a child whom a woman might be breastfeeding. The fourth extension is that of being “confined in a jail, penitentiary or...similar institution”.

It is the fourth provision of extension that the government is seeking to amend, because it relates to circumstances under the control of the individual. Sections 8 and 10 of the Employment Insurance Act currently allow for prisoners to receive the same level of opportunity as hard-working Canadians who are in need of employment insurance.

I am sure there are many cases and examples of how a hard-working individual could benefit from an extension of 104 weeks. In my line of work, working with victims of crime, we see it on a regular basis. As you know, victimization happens suddenly and without warning. A victim is thrust into a situation of great despair and most often has the criminal justice system to deal with, such as police, statements, prosecutors, courts, etc. It is an area that has not received the attention it deserves when it comes to employment insurance.

We do understand that the government cannot be the answer to everyone's needs and that there must be limitations. However, we also understand that the Ministry of Human Resources and Skills Development is currently looking at providing some help for victims of crime in the future in relation to employment insurance.

My question to the members of Parliament who oppose this bill is this: which is more fair, an innocent family who had their loved one murdered and cannot work because of the trauma, the innocent victim of rape who cannot return to work because of fear and trauma—which is no fault of their own—or a person who knowingly commits a crime and then is not only protected but rewarded with an extension to receive the same level of opportunity as the individuals I described in the previous three circumstances? We think not.

In these fragile economic times, governments should be working hard to make sure they are investing in the priorities of Canadians and ensuring their hard-earned tax dollars are put to good use. This government must reassure Canadians about the integrity of the Ministry of Human Resources and Skills Development. The integrity of the ministry is important to all Canadians. This government should take the steps necessary to ensure it is protected.

In closing, we feel that Canada has one of the most successful systems of employment insurance. However, in these exceptional cases that this private member's bill points out, the ministry should act swiftly to take corrective measures. Thus, we are appearing here today in support of Bill C-316.

Thank you.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-316 under private members' business.

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I rise before the House today to support Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), presented by my colleague from the riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I want to commend this member for all his hard work on this bill.

I can also indicate that our caucus will be supporting Bill C-316 with two friendly amendments. The first amendment would narrow the scope of the bill to remove the extended qualifications and benefits period for those convicted of a crime. The second amendment would create a coming into force date on a Sunday to synchronize the bill with the typical administration of employment insurance benefits. As previously mentioned by the member for Cariboo—Prince George, he supports these amendments.

I am pleased to support Bill C-316 because the bill addresses something that is fundamentally unfair, namely that convicted criminals currently have preferential access to employment insurance benefits over law-abiding citizens.

To properly understand the inequity addressed by Bill C-316, we need to look at the context. Under the Employment Insurance Act, prisoners cannot collect EI benefits while incarcerated. Therefore, this bill only addresses employment insurance benefits granted after an individual leaves prison.

The purpose of the employment insurance program is to provide temporary income to replace lost employment income while claimants are looking for work.

The system also provides assistance to workers who are sick, pregnant women, parents taking care of a newborn or adopted child, and family members taking care of loved ones who are seriously ill.

This second group of benefits can largely be summed up as being unavailable for work because of circumstances beyond the individual's control.

When an individual applies for benefits, there are two key time periods: the qualifying period and the benefits period. The qualifying period is a period in which an individual must have worked a minimum number of hours in order to qualify for a benefit under the program. The benefit period is the period of time during which claimants may collect the benefits for which they have qualified. No benefits can be received after the end of the benefits period. Simply put, the benefits period can be thought of as a cut-off date; all benefits must be taken before this date or else be lost.

In most cases, both the qualifying and benefit periods are set at 52 weeks. There are, however, exceptions to the 52-week limit. These allow for the extension of the qualifying period and the benefits period for up to 104 weeks if an individual is on sickness leave or workers compensation. Currently there are also extensions to both periods for the time an individual spends in prison or jail or a similar institution.

The member for Cariboo—Prince George has already gone into some depth about those exemptions and has demonstrated how these benefits predominantly are related to situations out of the control of the individual. This bill deals only with the extensions of the qualifying period and the benefits period for individuals in a prison, jail or similar institution.

Currently the existing extensions ensure that convicted criminals who serve less than 52 weeks in jail merely have their full 52-week qualifying and benefits period interrupted, with no repercussions because of their jail sentence. This potentially allows them twice the period of time available to a law-abiding citizen to collect benefits or to count hours of work to qualify for benefits.

The provisions of the law that set out such measures have been in place for some time, but they are creating a rift. They favour some people, at the expense of the majority.

Convicted felons should not receive preferential access over law-abiding citizens and as a result increase the cost of the program to hard-working Canadians. To be clear, we are all in agreement on the extensions individuals should be granted for life circumstances beyond their control, such as illness or injury. However, this is not the case with crime. To be convicted of a crime, an individual made a choice to commit that criminal act. This choice is within the control of the individual.

Why should inmates have privileges that the rest of the population cannot have? To us and to all hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, this does not make sense.

As a government, we understand the importance of providing former inmates with every opportunity to reintegrate into society. Correctional Service Canada already offers a number of programs to inmates during their incarcerations that are aimed at helping them reintegrate into society by providing them with employment training and helping them to acquire the skills they need to improve their employability. Correctional Service Canada also offers employment services that help prisoners find a job once they are released. Finally, Correctional Service Canada works in partnership with community colleges and industrial organizations to offer a large array of certification programs and works with recognized employers and industry associations.

These measures do not reward crime. They help people get back on the right track.

Canadians have a right to expect that their government is just and fair when defining and adopting laws that govern our lives. It is a fundamental principle of democracy. This bill would ensure that convicted criminals have to play by the same rules as law-abiding citizens. If their EI benefits lapse because they are in jail, that is not the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers to fix; it is the responsibility of the guilty party for making the choice to commit a criminal offence.

It is a matter of justice and fairness.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to express my indignation about Bill C-316. I strongly recommend that members of all parties vote against this absurd and completely useless bill.

Hon. members are aware that the public's cynicism about the political work that we are trying to do is growing every day, and this bill simply adds to it. According to the Conservatives' twisted logic, if inmates are entitled to a privilege to which pregnant women are not, then the government should take that privilege away from inmates rather acting in a logical manner and helping pregnant women get access to it. We need to keep in mind that the people in our ridings are not stupid and that they will harshly judge any politicians who cultivate this cynicism by voting in favour of Bill C-316.

I would like to take a moment to explain why Canadians who spend less than one year in prison are entitled to an extension of their qualifying period, which is defined as the period in which a worker qualifies to receive employment insurance benefits. This is the period preceding the loss of employment, during which a person must have worked a certain number of hours in order to qualify for benefits. That number varies depending on the regional rate of unemployment. The qualifying period is usually 52 weeks.

When a worker files a claim and has worked a sufficient number of hours during his qualifying period, the benefits to which he is entitled can be paid over a maximum period of 52 weeks. That does not mean that the person will receive 52 weeks of benefits; it means that he has 52 weeks after losing his employment to receive employment insurance benefits.

The Conservative member is simplifying the facts and distorting the truth. He is giving the impression that prisoners receive benefits while they are in prison, which is not the case. The people who benefit from this special measure are those who have worked enough to qualify for benefits and, as contributors to the EI program, deserve to get those benefits when they get out of prison. This applies only to people serving a one-year prison sentence. Those serving more than a one-year sentence do not receive EI benefits.

Bill C-316 amends the Employment Insurance Act in order to repeal the provisions that allow for qualifying periods and benefit periods to be extended as the result of time spent by the claimant in a prison, detox centre or other similar institution. The Conservatives are trying to eliminate an exception that helps former inmates return to the workforce, regain some self-confidence and access paid job training. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not proposed any solutions to help pregnant women who are being treated unfairly in this file.

The Conservatives and anyone who plans to support this useless bill should be ashamed of themselves. The question here is not about the equality of Canadians within the EI system or the supposed preferential treatment of prisoners in the EI system. Rather, it is a question of making the necessary changes to a law that is unfair and correcting a situation that is biased against women on maternity leave. I feel it is my duty to point out the Conservative government's incompetence in this area, even though it claims to stand up for family values.

The Conservatives are blinded by their obsession with law and order, and we absolutely must prevent them from casting a shadow on the future of thousands of people who could use a second chance.

Recently, the Conservatives have been trying to score political points on the backs of offenders by introducing bills that seem increasingly arbitrary, making no distinction between types of crime, leaving no room for rehabilitation and proposing nothing but imprisonment to prevent recidivism. In Canada, however, all the numbers show that our social reintegration model is working and that crime rates are dropping steadily in most provinces.

Despite what the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George might say, helping inmates break the cycle of crime has always worked well in Canada and we are now reaping the benefits. It is thanks to these often exceptional measures—like the one we are debating today—that we have built this solid, yet imperfect, but well-meaning system that is a little like us.

Many former inmates have a great deal of difficulty finding work once they leave prison. Incarceration has a lasting negative impact on an individual's income, to say the least. Generally speaking, a person is sentenced to less than one year in prison because it is his first offence and he deserves a second chance. What is more, former inmates are more likely to be unemployed or hold low-paying jobs than before going to prison.

Extending the qualifying period and the benefit period for workers who spend less than one year in prison helps support the former inmate and his family when he is looking for employment after leaving prison.

However, a person incarcerated for more than one year cannot receive benefits until he has accumulated enough hours of insurable employment after leaving prison, while a person incarcerated for less than one year could qualify for employment insurance with the hours worked during the extended qualifying period.

Employment insurance also provides access to job training and officers who can assist in the job search. In many cases, the employment insurance program changes lives for the better.

It is also interesting to note that a person suspected of committing a crime can be detained pending the outcome of his trial. This means that an innocent person might be incarcerated while awaiting a verdict that would clear his name. Under Bill C-316, a person charged with a crime he did not commit who is imprisoned could not receive employment insurance benefits upon his release. Repealing the provisions that allow for qualifying periods and benefit periods to be extended does not just concern criminals; it concerns the innocent as well.

The solution to the inequalities in the employment insurance program is not to abolish an exceptional measure that helps inmates, but to make a clear change to the legislation as to the maximum number of weeks of regular and special benefits. The Employment Insurance Act has to allow new mothers and workers who lose their jobs to use sick leave benefits when they need them. It has to allow a mother on parental leave to have the same extended qualifying period and benefit period as an individual who has been incarcerated, and not the reverse.

Instead of eliminating this exceptional measure, why not extend it to others? I would like to add that in our 2011 election platform, the NDP made a commitment to guarantee that parents who take maternity leave or parental leave would not be penalized in terms of benefits once they return to work. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development recognized that there was a problem interpreting the Employment Insurance Act in the case of women on maternity leave and access to special illness benefits and regular benefits. She must now undertake to rectify a situation that is unfair to Canadian working women, rather than seeking out senseless solutions just to please the Conservative hard-liners on crime.

I am asking my fellow members to not pass this absurd and mean-spirited bill, which is not in keeping with the values of the Canadians who elected us. Why harm rather than help? Why penalize rather than support? Let us concentrate on the real priorities of Canadian families: employment, health care, quality of life and workers' rights. Logic dictates that we vote against Bill C-316.

I would like to close by speaking about something that I feel is very important. A person who is incarcerated for more than one year is not entitled to employment insurance. Eighty-eight percent of female inmates are incarcerated for committing economic crimes, most of which are motivated by poverty.

The NDP will be voting against Bill C-316.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move Bill C-316, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration).

Simply put, the bill would ensure that a convicted criminal would not have preferential access to EI benefits compared to law-abiding Canadians. The bill would remove the extension to the qualifying period and the benefit period under the employment insurance program that is currently equal to a time a convict spends in prison.

As we speak, convicted felons have the ability to extend their qualifying and benefit periods up to a maximum period of 104 weeks as opposed to 52 weeks for a law-abiding citizen who is out of work. People out there do not know this. It is a section of the Employment Insurance Act that must be changed. Given these extensions are not available to law-abiding claimants who are actively looking for work, this is simply not fair. Bill C-316 would remove the extension of the qualification and benefit period for the time someone spends in jail.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has indicated that the government would like to move two friendly amendments, and I certainly support these amendments.

The first amendment would ensure that my bill would only remove the extension of qualification and the benefit periods for individuals who have actually been convicted of a crime and are in jail. This would ensure that individuals held in pre-trial custody but who are subsequently found innocent would not be affected by this bill.

The second amendment would have the bill coming into force on a Sunday. This would align the implementation date of the bill with the employment insurance calendar, which works in two week increments starting on a Sunday.

I will quickly reflect on how the current employment insurance system works and what motivated me to move the bill.

Currently, when an individual applies for employment insurance they are evaluated as to whether they have worked enough hours in the qualifying period to receive benefits. The standard qualifying period is 52 weeks in length. The qualifying period can only be extended under four circumstances under the act and can only be extended only to a maximum of 104 weeks. I will read them to give some context as to why I feel the exemption related to prison must be removed.

The first extension for being incapable of work is because of prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy. The second extension is being confined in jail, a penitentiary or a similar institution. The third applies if one receives some assistance under employment benefits, such as a plan from one's previous employer. The fourth relates to receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis of having ceased to work because continuing to work could result in danger to an unborn child or a child for whom a woman might be breastfeeding.

It is the second provision related to jail that I am seeking to amend because it relates to circumstances under the control of the individual. I will provide an example of how the exemption works.

Under our current legislation, a convicted criminal could be in jail for one year, come out of jail, apply for EI and the hours worked in the last two years would be considered qualified for employment insurance. A law-abiding citizen who applied at the same time would only be able to count the hours worked in the last year. In other words, a convicted criminal who spent a year in jail would have 104 weeks to apply for a 52-week qualification period. It is as if the prison time simply did not count. However, a person who took a year off for family reasons or to pursue some other interest would only have a 52-week period. This is not fair.

A similar situation could occur with the benefits period. Typically, an individual can only receive regular employment insurance benefits for 52 weeks after the date of applying. There is an exemption if someone has been in jail or prison, like I just mentioned. Someone coming out of prison would be allowed an extension of 104 weeks in which he or she could take employment benefits. It would be as if the 52 weeks spent in jail did not happen and he or she would start on 52 weeks. That is not fair.

It is particularly unfair because any regular EI benefits that a law-abiding citizen applies for but does not take within 52 weeks of filing disappears once that 52 week period expires. This is in contrast to a convicted felon who could collect benefits for up to 104 weeks after making a claim, depending on the time spent in prison.

This is all in contrast to the law-abiding citizen who started receiving the same length of benefits as the convicted criminal. The law-abiding citizen would lose his or her benefits, while the convicted criminal would retain his or her benefits because of being in prison. It is just not fair.

Someone convicted of a crime should not receive preferential access to employment insurance benefits. Individuals choose to commit crimes. Why should those individuals receive preferential treatment over law-abiding citizens who choose to take time off and as a result would lose the benefit period? It is simply not fair.

It is one thing if someone is unable to work because of sickness. It is another matter entirely if someone convicted of a crime has greater access. That is the basis of my bill. That individual chose to break the law.

To be clear, this is not about punishing criminals further. Our justice legislation is clear about what the punishment for crime should be and thanks to a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government what the punishment will be.

The bill is about ensuring that convicted felons are forced to live by the same rules as law-abiding citizens. What Canadian would agree that a convicted felon should receive preferential treatment with regard to employment insurance benefits? No right-thinking Canadian would support that for a second.

People who choose to break the law and lose their jobs because of it is no different than people being fired for just cause. Those individuals made a choice to act in some way that ended the employment, whether they committed a crime and went to jail, or whether they committed some other offence on the job that caused them to be fired. They made a choice and they should not receive preferential EI benefits over a hard-working, law-abiding Canadians who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. It should not happen, and that is the purpose of my bill.

The bill is about fundamental fairness when it comes to accessing employment insurance benefits. Canada probably has the most generous and most helpful employment insurance programs than any other country in the world. We only have to look at the last couple of years when we were going through the recession. One only has to look at the bills our government brought in, such as the extended work benefits and job sharing. We have done everything we can, something unheard of in most other countries. This government believes in fairness. We are being fair to the law-abiding people who work our country. As I said before, the issue is fairness.

Should a convicted felon found guilty of wilfully committing a criminal act be given preferential access to employment insurance benefits simply for being confined to a jail? Members on this side of the House say a resounding no, that this should not happen. As I said, any clear-thinking Canadian would come up with the same response, no.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues in this place to support the bill in principle and pass it at second reading because it is the right thing to do. Who in the House can successfully argue that someone who has wilfully committed a crime and gone to jail should all of a sudden be eligible for preferential treatment under the EI program? I suggest no one can. I am afraid, given the NDP's soft on crime ideology, that there will be some arguments, but it is beyond me how it will be able to justify that.

I am sure that people watching this at home tonight never knew that people who went to jail because they had committed crimes would have preferential treatment. They are probably wondering how that could possibly happen. It happened years ago when the Employment Insurance Act was written. I do not know what government it was under, but somehow the provision was put in that allowed for this.

I ask my colleagues in this place to support this bill at second reading. It is a good bill. It is a bill that needs to be passed to clean up that portion of the act that is simply not fair.

Our government has clearly shown that it cares about people who go through hard times because they lose their jobs. We have expanded the access to Canadians who have found themselves in that position. It is only right for a caring government to do that. This government cares about working Canadians and their ability to provide for their families through their jobs. We will always be there for Canadians, but we must not allow people who wilfully put themselves in positions where they are convicted of crimes and go to jail or who wilfully get fired from their jobs to have preferential treatment over people who are hard working and lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there questions or comments on Bill C-316?

Seeing none, we'll move to Bill C-280.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none, we'll move on to Bill C-316.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Barrie for his support and seconding this bill, my Ottawa staff for help they provided in putting this together and my wife, Annie, for the support she gives me and, indeed, on this private member's bill.

I believe that most Canadians, maybe as high as 99%, maybe a vast majority of members of Parliament and maybe yourself, Mr. Speaker, do not know that going to prison could allow someone to double the amount of time they can apply for and receive in employment insurance benefits. Sections 8 and 10 of the Employment Insurance Act currently allow for prisoners to receive the same level of opportunity as hard-working Canadians who are in need of employment insurance. My bill would repeal those provisions in the Employment Insurance Act so prisoners would no longer be able to apply for an extension to their employment insurance benefits simply because they were in jail.

Why should criminals receive the same level of treatment as hard-working Canadians who are pregnant, or suffer illnesses or injuries? As an example, a mother in Quebec was denied employment insurance after her place of employment went out of business because she had just returned from maternity leave and had not worked enough hours in the previous year. If she had been in prison, however, instead of on maternity leave, she would have been able to receive the extended benefit. This is crazy.

Thus, quite simply, the bill would change the EI Act so that those who serving time for crime no longer would be able to receive preferential treatment over hard-working Canadians, who deserve and need this kind of help. This bill is all about fairness for hard-working Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)