Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2012

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beauséjour, you know that the system was established in 1959 by the Progressive Conservatives. They must have had a reason for setting the extension to 104 weeks. Do you know why?

[Louis Beauséjour]

No, I don't know why the system was implemented.

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

The system was implemented to help rehabilitate prisoners. When we talk about prisoners, we have to be careful because we are talking about prisoners serving a sentence of two years less a day, not hardened criminals. We are talking about crimes related to fragile mental health, addiction, poverty, theft, and so on.

Mr. Beauséjour, my question has to do with our rehabilitation-related obligations to workers sentenced to at least a year in jail. In your view, is that fair?

[Louis Beauséjour]

I am not here to give you my opinion on whether that is fair or not. I am here to answer your technical questions on what the bill seeks to accomplish and on what the EI program does.

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

Let me rephrase my question. In your view, what can we do to make the situation fairer and more equitable for people?

[Louis Beauséjour]

Could you repeat the question, please?

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

What can society and the government do to make the situation fairer and more equitable for everyone?

[Louis Beauséjour]

As I explained, Bill C-316 seeks to...

At the moment, the measures under the Employment Insurance Act provide for very limited circumstances in which the benefit and qualifying periods can be extended. The extensions are for people who cannot have access to the benefits or who cannot work and stay on the labour market.

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

Okay.

Manon, did you want us to share the time? You can go ahead.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

I just want to understand one thing.

At the end of your presentation, you said that the estimated annual savings for 700 claimants were approximately $3 million. As a result, the people getting out of prison don't have access to that amount. This means that those people will have to go on welfare. So those expenses are being transferred to the provinces.

[Louis Beauséjour]

It means that they will no longer have access to EI benefits. The impact on the provinces might actually be minimal, depending on whether those people get social assistance or not. That's one of the potential consequences.

In broad terms, we must also remember that the federal government transfers a certain amount of money to provincial governments through labour market agreements in order to assist with the training of individuals who qualify or not for employment insurance.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

So this gets dumped on the provinces.

[Louis Beauséjour]

The government actually wants to make sure the act is amended so that it applies to all Canadians consistently.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

I will give the floor back to Mr. Patry.

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

I have another question, Mr. Beauséjour.

We are told we can go back 104 weeks. That is very important for us.

We need to make a distinction. Someone in a federal penitentiary, where sentences are two years plus a day, is not entitled to that. However, that is important for someone who is in a provincial institution for two years less a day. It is important because there are no provincial programs to reintegrate those people into society, to reach out to them and help them overcome their addiction problems. For us, it is important that they at least have access to EI and that they look for a job.

As you know, these are not hardened criminals. Just now, the members opposite said that people are criminals by choice. That is not necessarily true. Some people cannot afford to pay for their fines. Some people might have had the bad luck to have one too many beers, to drive home and to be caught at a police checkpoint. With no money, they end up in jail.

Just having this money and the 104 weeks, or at least the fact of looking for a job, is quite significant for us. When someone is in jail, their continuous employment stops after five days. That is how it is under most collective agreements. It is even stricter than that for most people without a union.

I would like us to agree on that, because the 104-week period is important for us and for rehabilitating people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Make a very short comment if you can, because your time is up.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Let me say this again.

The EI program has a rather restricted mandate. It provides income support for finding a job and for other circumstances as well. The eligibility criteria are quite strict. I think that the qualifying and benefit periods can only be extended under very special circumstances.

The question is whether the bridging provisions for rehabilitation should fall under EI or under other programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you. Your time is up.

We'll move to Ms. Leitch. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here today to take some time to answer our questions.

Under the current legislation, convicted felons essentially have greater access to employment insurance benefits than law-abiding citizens. I think that Bill C-316 is really moving forward to make sure that criminals are not getting preferential treatment, that hard-working Canadians are being provided equal treatment, and that everyone is being treated on an equal playing field. You suggested that the government is trying to create that degree of consistency by implementing this new piece of legislation.

On that issue of fairness, maybe you can provide to us, in general, what sort of clear timeline you see. I know you say it in your notes, but I just want everyone to be very clear about employment insurance.

What is that timeline on the implementation and impact for an individual who may be affected by this legislation? How does that compare to the law-abiding Canadian who receives employment insurance when they lose their job through no fault of their own?

[Louis Beauséjour]

First of all, I would say that most Canadians don't receive any extension to their benefit period or their qualifying period. They have to have been working during the 52-week qualifying period to be able to qualify for EI, and they have to meet the eligibility criteria.

In terms of how we will apply it when it comes into force, it will apply to all those who are establishing a new benefit period. If they were in prison before it came into force, they would obtain an extension on their benefit period for the number of weeks they were in prison before the coming into force, but not for the weeks after the coming into force. All new potential claimants or inmates who received a sentence after it came into force would not receive extension except if they are found not guilty.

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

Thank you.

One thing I wanted to reiterate, if you could speak to it a little bit, is on this issue of extensions. You stated earlier that very few individuals in Canada ever have an opportunity for an extension. What we are removing here is an extension to EI; at least that's what I'm interpreting from your comments.

What I'm looking for is clarity with regard to the fact that what we are removing is just an extension that the majority of Canadians do not have, so that we can make it very clear to all those individuals who are victims of crime out there that we're trying to create equity and some degree of consistency in the legislation for all Canadians.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, I did mention that these extensions are limited to a number of circumstances. By default, the benefit period is 52 weeks and the qualifying period is also 52 weeks. I did mention when I was doing my introductory remarks that people who are incapable of work because of illness and during pregnancy can receive the extension.

People receiving assistance under EI benefits.... It seems to me that people who were, let's say, receiving any part two or training can receive extension for the qualifying period for the time they were in training. People receiving payments under a provincial law on the basis that continuing to work would result in danger to them, their unborn child, or a child whom they are breastfeeding would also receive an extension, as well as people receiving workers' compensation. Those are the elements under which people receive an extension now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll move to the next questioner.

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your presentation.

Throughout today what we've been hearing about are law-abiding citizens, the victims, the offenders. What we heard from the previous witnesses was basically the fact that if there's an inequity in the system right now, why not fix it to bring people up, as opposed to reducing access to employment insurance, which would actually create a civil penalty. I agree with that.

My concern as I'm hearing what's been going on today is.... I'm just trying to get some sense of this. If someone is held in remand--and maybe you'd be able to clarify that for me--and then gets sentenced and is found guilty, from the time they're being held in remand, they wouldn't be able to apply for that extension. However, if someone is not held in remand and is waiting for their court date, and then gets sentenced, they won't be able to ask for that extension there, but there will be some discriminatory practices based on the fact that it depends on what the length of time is. You indicated that if they go back to work for a certain period of time they would be able to apply for their EI after that. So if they work a little bit more after, they would be able to go back on that claim.

I'm looking at the remand part, because you will have people who are held in remand and people who are not in remand. At the end of the day, both of these people may be found guilty or not guilty, but if they're found guilty, the person who is in remand will get a longer period of civil penalty, I guess we would call it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Did you get the question?