Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call to order meeting 52 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Tuesday, October 27, 2009. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 29, 2009, we are studying Bill C-50, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

Today, we're going to be doing clause-by-clause consideration, and afterwards we still have some committee business to deal with--Mr. Martin's motion, as well as our budget for travel, which we'll handle afterwards.

I'm going to start with clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, since we have officials from the department here, I would like to put a question to them, the one I asked about apprentices. I want some clarification. To my mind, the intention is certainly not to exclude people who work. The way I see it, if someone is working and has to take training, that is part of their job. The person was not laid off. The question put to our witnesses last week was whether these people could be eligible under the special program for parental leave, maternity leave and so forth.

Should the committee members put forward an amendment, yes or no? I would like to hear the government's answer to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Mr. Clarke, I think you probably heard the question as it deals with apprentices.

[Philip Clarke, Director General, Benefits Processing, Service Canada]

Yes, I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry to say that Monsieur Beauséjour, who would be most appropriate to respond to that question, hasn't been able to arrive yet, and neither has Madam McLean. I suspect they're stuck downstairs in security on their way through. I'm not sure how you'd like to proceed. We're in your hands, sir.

Oh, here they come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Why don't we just wait until they get their coats off, and then we can proceed with the answer to the question.

Mr. Godin, when they have had a chance to get settled, I'll ask you to direct the question back to them again and we can go from there. How does that sound, Mr. Godin?

If you guys are all set now, I'll just ask Mr. Godin to ask the question again.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Last week, we heard from operators and representatives from the international union of engineers. The question had to do with apprentices. Perhaps the government did not see this coming, but there are apprentices who are working and who are sent to community college to complete their apprenticeship module. Then they go back to work. But they receive employment insurance benefits. They were not laid off because of a shortage of work. It is a special apprenticeship program.

Should we move an amendment, and is it valid? What does the government intend to do? Can these people be considered special cases, similar to those who are on sick leave, maternity leave or parental leave? What does the government intend to do?

[Louis Beauséjour, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

In Bill C-50, the excluded weeks are defined as regular benefits. Under the legislation, the term “regular benefits” excludes benefits payable under work sharing agreements. That also excludes benefits paid to those who are on training recommended by the commission or an authority designated by the Employment Insurance Commission.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Does that mean they will be included in Bill C-50?

[Louis Beauséjour]

That means that the definition of “regular benefits” excludes those benefits received by individuals in a training program approved by the commission.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So the union does not need to worry.

[Louis Beauséjour]

It does not need to worry.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The weeks during which those individuals are at community college will not be calculated as regular EI weeks.

[Louis Beauséjour]

If they are taking training on a full-time basis and that training is approved by the commission, no, it will not be taken into account.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

They are not excluded, but no weeks are added. According to the provisions in Bill C-50, workers who have worked for less than seven years and who lose their job are all excluded.

[Louis Beauséjour]

The definition of a “long-tenured worker” is an unemployed worker who has paid 30% of the maximum EI premiums for 7 of the past 10 years.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

So it is not accurate to say that apprentices will benefit from the new measures. They will receive benefits that they are already entitled to.

[Louis Beauséjour]

If they are apprentices, they have to meet the requirements set out in both parts of the definition of a “long-tenured worker”. For example, if an individual satisfies the definition of a “long-tenured worker” and if they received benefit weeks while on training, those weeks will not be included in the 35 weeks in the last 5 years before their EI claim.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

But....

[Louis Beauséjour]

Furthermore, the individual has to satisfy the definition of a “long-tenured worker”, that is, they must have paid at least 30% of the maximum EI premiums for 7 years, and they must not have received more than 35 weeks of regular benefits in the last 5 years.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Precisely. It could be a worker who was not an apprentice before but who was a long-tenured worker. That person could change jobs or occupations and become an apprentice. They would be eligible under clause 2 of the bill, which stipulates that when you have worked more than 7 years, you may be eligible if you have met the other two requirements. Is that correct?

There is one question from the outset, and it will apply to every clause in the bill. No one who has worked for less than 7 years will be eligible for these benefits.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, we agree.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Then it increases in levels, from 8 to 15 years, regardless of whether you are an apprentice or not. That needs to be very clear for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Godin, do you need another clarification?