Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Who is going first, Ms. O'Connell or Mr. Ouellette?
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
I want to make sure I'm in the right section. I'm looking for the Canada Disability Savings Act.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It's not in this part.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, that's not in this part either.
Mr. Mercille, I think that concludes your presentation. Thank you very much.
That deals with parts 2 and 3.
We'll call up those who are dealing with all seven divisions of part 4 all together. We'll go through these one by one.
We shall suspend for a couple of minutes while we bring up the next 10 or 12 witnesses.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could we come to order? Where are the members, so that we can finish, if we can?
I know there's not enough room for everyone, so we'll hold back on divisions 6 and 7 for the moment.
I understand that Ms. Ryan has to be at another meeting fairly soon, and Ms. Venne also.
We'll deal with division 1 of part 4 first, which concerns the Employment Insurance Act, to get that out of the way so that Ms. Ryan can leave.
The floor is yours.
November 17th, 2016 / 5:10 p.m.
Annette Ryan Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My name is Annette Ryan. I'm director general of employment insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada. I'm joined by Janique Venne, who is director of our regular benefits policy, also at ESDC.
Let me answer the honourable member's question from the last round of questions before treating this measure. I would simply say that there has been no change to the family supplement portion of employment insurance. It remains as it always has been, and the name change has no policy import for that section of the EI program.
To turn to the legislative proposal, I would start, Mr. Chair, by saying that the proposal is not a change of policy or program operations in any way. The measure is a limited technical legislative proposal that's intended to strengthen the initial regulatory implementation of one of the government's main Budget 2016 EI commitments.
Starting from that description, that the measure is essentially technical, I'll describe it further. The measure speaks to the definition of what is not “suitable employment” within the Employment Insurance Act. The act has had a long-standing provision that creates an obligation for our claimants to actively look for and be willing to accept suitable work.
This concept of what is suitable work, and more specifically “not suitable employment”, was included in the Employment Insurance Act prior to 2013. Considerable jurisprudence was established through time to inform how this concept should be interpreted by Service Canada agents, workers, and employers.
In Budget 2012, new measures were introduced under the rubric of connecting Canadians with available jobs. Under this initiative, provisions specifying what is “not suitable employment” in the EI Act were repealed, and the question of what is suitable and not suitable employment was established fully in regulation at that time.
The EI regulations were amended to prescribe specific criteria on these fronts. They spoke to what the claimant is expected to search for and accept through the duration of their claim, based on the claimant category to which they belong. These criteria, established in regulation in 2013, introduced different treatments for different EI claimants, depending on their work history, while the criteria relating to daily commuting time to and from work and those types of measures were also then specified in regulation.
Moving ahead to Budget 2016, the government set forth an initiative to simplify job search responsibilities for EI claimants and reversed the criteria adopted in regulation in 2013. At the time, we made those changes fully in regulation, to be in effect by July 3, 2016.
Specifically, criteria relating to the length of commuting time, offered earnings, and the type of work were repealed and replaced by provisions specifying what is “not suitable employment” as set out in the EI Act prior to 2013. Essentially, we went back entirely to the previous text that had been in place prior to 2013, but we placed it in regulations, whereas prior to 2013 that text had been in legislation.
Other policy changes were made, effective July 3, 2016. References to such claimant categories as long-tenured workers, frequent claimants, and occasional claimants as tied to their job search responsibilities were removed from the criteria determining what constitutes “suitable employment”.
The question was essentially subsequently raised within the regulatory process as to whether the specific concept of “not suitable employment” would be better established in legislation, as had been the case prior to 2013, rather than in regulation.
Essentially, limited technical amendments are proposed today to legislate the provisions related to the definition of what is not suitable in the EI Act. Provisions related to the criteria for determining what constitutes “suitable employment” will remain in the regulations.
If I may make an editorial statement, let me say that the measures that will remain in the regulations are essentially new measures that are favourable to EI claimants, whereas the measure of what is “not suitable employment” reconstitutes entirely the legislative fabric in place prior to that time, which essentially adjudicated claims that the worker might want to press.
Essentially, the proposal to adopt the provision in legislation is intended to align even more fully and directly with past jurisprudence. It does not alter the policy intent of what was adopted in July 2016 in any way.
I will conclude there, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to take questions.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will go to questions.
This commentary is not directed at you, Ms. Ryan, but it seems to me that this is a part of the Budget Implementation Act that should really be directed towards another committee that deals with EI. I'm just saying that.
We committed not to do an omnibus bill, so I hope the minister gets this message. This seems to me to be part of an omnibus bill. We said that last year. It's not a comment to any of you officials here, but we committed that there wouldn't be omnibus bills, and I see several sections in here that are really not strictly directed to a finance committee's responsibility. There are other committees that deal with EI and know this field a lot better than we do, so we're put in a little bit of a difficult position. I say that as chair of this committee.
In any event, we'll go to questions.
Who wants to start?
Go ahead, Mr. Ouellette.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much.
I'd like to finish up our conversation of a little bit earlier.
In the various types of “earnings” definition, does the Canada child benefit or the child tax benefit count as earnings?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Count as earnings for the purposes of...?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm quite confident, sir, that it does not, and if that is in any way incorrect, I'll get back to the chair directly.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is just a question of process, because you've been very clear with your feelings on this.
As a committee, we have every opportunity to ask other committees to review certain pieces of legislation for their comment. Is that something that the committee wants to entertain?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, I think we can.... We'll go through this session today, and there may be sections of this sent to other committees. I'm not sure of the process either.
Guy may know. Go ahead, Mr. Caron.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This was done in the past, but there were always limitations ensuring that the provisions were not addressed satisfactorily. Mr. Chair, I agree with you that it should have been sent to the Standing Committee on Human Resources. That said, it is up to us, and I have a question about the definition of “reasonable interval”, which seems a bit arbitrary to me. We are saying that, after a reasonable interval, the available job, which could be in another field or have less favourable conditions, might once again become suitable.
Who decides the length of the reasonable interval?
Is it a rigid provision that doesn't take into consideration particular circumstances?
In my region, for instance, seasonal employment is an important part of the economy. Eliminating the suitable employment distinction created serious problems. If we impose this definition of reasonable interval, which doesn't consider regional realities, we will somehow end up in the same situation as before. I'm concerned about the arbitrary nature of this notion of reasonable interval.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Caron, your question touches on the general logic of this measure and the changes from 2013 and 2016. It is logical to determine whether it is preferable to clarify these definitions in the context of regulations or an act, or even on the basis of the case law.
In this case, we have implemented the government's platform very faithfully in order to reverse changes that were made in 2013. The tendency is to revert to case law, as a basis, to clarify these definitions.
That said, I will continue in English and consult my notes in order to give you a more specific answer to your question.
The reasonable interval refers to the period starting when a claimant has become unemployed to the time that subsequent employment was offered to the claimant. This is only for employment to be considered suitable when it falls outside a claimant's usual occupation or at a lower wage scale.
A reasonable interval is not a fixed period, and it varies according to the circumstances. Case law has provided some guidance in determining a reasonable interval through the circumstances of each particular case, with factors including an active job search, consideration of reduction in salary, drastic change in occupation, shortage of work, but as a general rule, case law has held that essentially two to three months is a reasonable period of time before a claimant needs to be more flexible and less restrictive in determining a suitable employment.
To conclude, it's a case-by-case approach.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
What happens, for example, in the case of a fisher in the Gaspé who is working but can't work for certain periods that may last four to six months? After two or three months, is it possible that if he refuses a job that is not in the fishing industry because it isn't in his line of work, he will be considered to have refused suitable employment? It isn't very different from what we had previously with the reality of seasonal workers. If someone has seasonal work or a job for seven months of the year, that person can very easily be forced from his or her field. I didn't understand that it was as clear as that.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
I understand your question, sir, but we are still trying to ensure that the system is balanced. We also have to satisfy employers who have a shortage of labour in a particular region. If people receive employment insurance benefits and there are vacancies in their region, the idea is to require them to consider the available jobs. This aspect of the system has been around for a long time. It was not established in 2013, for example.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Based on what you're saying, unsuitable employment may becomes suitable two or three months after job separation.