Finance Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Andrew Brown]

I would not say it's related to a particular case. It's taking a look at the EI program and its objectives to achieve an effective and efficient labour market. Along with that is looking at measures within the program that would create an incentive to return to work, and while a variety of approaches have been tested over a 12-year period, this is one that has been found to have a greater incentive, in particular because it offers a sustained incentive to work. In other words, if you work for one day, you are earning some additional income. If you work for a second day or if you work for a third day, you continue to be earning greater income overall.

Some of the approaches in the past have had a threshold beyond which those incentives disappear. Someone who worked beyond one day during the week would complain that they were working for nothing, because the EI program would be reducing their benefits by $1 for each dollar of earnings. This is a different approach, where it is 50¢ on the dollar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I could give you a specific example. There are lots of them in P.E.I.

In the potato industry in the winter months, when potato growers need somebody to grade potatoes, they might need them for two and a half days. Somebody on EI could work one day, but to work their second day, or at least their third half day, it would actually cost them more to work than not to work, because, first of all, they had to drive to work and they were losing dollar for dollar. It does two things: it hurts the person who's on employment insurance; and it affects the economy by them not being available for work.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That is a good point. Do you have any data on the impact on labour market participation by EI recipients who have been eligible over the years for this pilot compared to those who were not?

[Andrew Brown]

First off, any claimant who has been doing some work while on claim would have been eligible to receive this treatment, with the exception of maternity and sickness claimants, where currently they face dollar-for-dollar reductions. Otherwise, anyone who was receiving regular benefits for job loss, fishing benefits, parental benefits, or compassionate care benefits—I think I've caught them all—would have automatically been eligible for this measure.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Since what year?

[Andrew Brown]

The series of pilots began in 2005. They were initially regional in nature. There have been some adjustments to the pilots over the years, as well as making them national in scope rather than regional.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

They were piloted. Presumably the department kept data on the results of the pilots. Because they were originally rolled out in batches rather than being national, do we have any data comparing people who were eligible to those who were not at the time, or longitudinal data that compares the way people behaved before the pilots were introduced versus how they behaved after they were introduced?

[Andrew Brown]

Yes. I'll turn to Ms. Scales to comment.

[Cara Scales, Director, Policy Analysis and Initiatives, Employment and Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development]

The annual report on the EI program is presented to Parliament every year. Within the monitoring and assessment report on the EI program, we do report on the results of the pilot projects, dating back to 2005. This current pilot, pilot 20, was included in a suite of pilot projects that were evaluated recently. In the 2017 evaluation, the results from pilot projects 18 and 19, which also used the 50% rule, found that the probability of working while on claim rose by about 11%, and the number of weeks worked increased by about one week for claimants who were using the 50% rule.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Have you calculated whether that reduces the net cost of employment insurance? If you take that behavioural change into consideration and compare it to the extra cost associated with bringing about that behavioural change, is the government better off financially? Is the EI system better off financially by having the pilot than otherwise?

[Cara Scales]

Yes. The increase in work while in claim led to a decline in EI benefits paid, of at least $100 per claim.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

What does that work out to as a total, ballpark?

[Cara Scales]

I'd have to go back and ask the analyst.

The effect is that the claimants in fact bring home more income, because they have their EI benefits as well as their income from employment, but the EI account itself sees savings as a result of the rule.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right, so everyone is better off—the EI account and the claimant as well.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

On division 15, “Judges Act”, our witnesses from Justice Canada are Ms. McKinnon, senior counsel, judicial affairs, courts and tribunal policy; and Ms. Dekker, counsel, judicial affairs, courts and tribunal policy. Welcome.

Ms. McKinnon, you are on the floor.

[Catherine McKinnon, Senior Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Department of Justice]

Thank you, and good evening.

Ms. Dekker and I will be speaking to division 15, which contains amendments to the Judges Act and the Federal Courts Act to create new judicial positions for the provincial superior courts and the Federal Court. I will be speaking briefly about the changes that impact the provincial superior courts, and Ms. Dekker will speak to the changes to the Federal Court complement.

In terms of the provincial superior courts, you will see that the amendments propose an increase to the complement of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by six judges, and an increase to the complement of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal by one judge. These new judicial positions are in response to demonstrated existing and projected workload pressures in these courts, and will assist them in dealing with their caseloads in a timely manner.

The funding for these new judges is effective immediately, and new appointments can be made to these positions once the necessary legislative amendments are in place authorizing the salaries.

In addition, the proposed amendments will create a pool of 39 new judicial positions for unified family courts, or UFCs, in Canada. Just to briefly explain the UFC model, it is designed to enhance access to the family justice system by consolidating all jurisdiction over family law matters in a single level of court, the superior court. The UFC provides a corps of judges who are specialized in family law, and promotes simplified procedures and the use of a full range of community and support services.

The UFC model is found presently in some Canadian jurisdictions, but not all of them. It is up to each province and territory to determine the court structure that best meets their needs. Provinces and territories pay the administrative costs associated with the UFC, while the federal government appoints and pays the UFC judges.

These 39 new UFC positions are intended to support the introduction of the UFC model in key sites in Alberta; the next significant phase of UFC expansion in Ontario; and the completion of the model province-wide in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The funding for the UFC positions is effective as of April 1, 2019, and the bill includes a coming-into-force provision to this effect, so that judicial appointments to the new UFC positions can be made after this date. The intervening period will allow time for the necessary steps to be taken to implement the UFC in the new sites.

I'll now turn to Ms. Dekker for the Federal Court changes.

[Anna Dekker, Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

I'll speak briefly to the amendments that would authorize the salaries for a new associate chief justice for the Federal Court and for creating one new position for that court through the Federal Courts Act amendments.

A new associate chief justice would share the managerial responsibilities that are currently borne by the chief justice alone. This position would allow the chief justice to devote more time to hearing cases, for example, and writing judgments, which are both important components of providing effective leadership for a court.

This position would be created through the conversion of a puisne judge into an associate chief justice position. At the same time, an additional judge would be added to the Federal Court to address projected increases in workload, for example, in the area of immigration cases.

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We spent considerable time on this issue this afternoon with witnesses, and the proposal certainly made the Law Society of Ontario happy, and a professor of law from Queen's University.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you for being here.

Clause 305 deals with the absence or incapacity of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal. In fact, it adds several new paragraphs.

Did the Act not already have this type of mechanism for replacing, on an interim basis, the Chief Justice during an absence?

[Anna Dekker]

Yes, there is currently. The addition is that instead of it being the judge the chief justice would designate, now the first option would go to the associate chief justice. Only if the associate chief justice is not available would it then go to the next one down the line.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Okay.

It is therefore an amendment in relation to the new position of Associate Chief Justice.

I have another jurilinguistic question.

The French version of clause 297 reads as follows: “s’agissant du juge en chef et du juge en chef adjoint de la Cour fédérale : 344 400 $”. Yet, the English version indicates that it is $344,400 “each”.

Is there a reason why the term “chacun” does not appear in the French version? This should not cause confusion.

[Anna Dekker]

When the drafting is done on the Judges Act, you would see in the French provisions, it's done slightly differently. When the drafters add a new position to the court, they would simply try to model what is done in other courts so there is internal consistency between the languages. It's just done slightly differently. But in each case it's clear that only the chief justice and the associate chief justice would be receiving that particular salary.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Therefore, it is about consistency.

Is there a reason why they have the same salary? The titles “Chief Justice” and “Associate Chief Justice” suggest that these positions are at different levels.

[Anna Dekker]

Currently all the chief justices and associate chief justices across the superior courts, which include all the provincial superior courts, whether trial or appellate, as well as the federal courts—the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Tax Court of Canada—wherever there is a chief justice and an associate chief justice and/or a senior associate chief justice where they exist.... All these positions receive the same salary, which is paid to all managerial judges across superior courts.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

It's consistent.