Human Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2012

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

But it wasn't that part of the EI Act that got my attention. I was disappointed, of course, but what it did was it made me read the act. I was trying to find some way I maybe could have gotten some benefits for this lady. In reading it, I came across this and said, “Am I seeing things?”

You know, if this lady had gone to jail, she wouldn't be calling my office asking for help now. This is not fair.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

It's interesting that you call it “not fair”, because of course when the amendment to the legislation was introduced by a Conservative government, they recognized the fact that when you talk.... Earlier you referred to it as “privileges”. Well, in fact it's not a privilege. Workers actually pay into employment insurance. It's kind of like an insurance premium. They pay into it. When they work, they pay those premiums. So it's not a privilege to collect employment insurance; it's a right based on the fact that workers work and pay into it.

When Conservatives introduced the legislation, as you probably are well aware, they looked at a number of factors around the fact that the person, the worker, was being doubly penalized. They were incarcerated for a crime that they committed and then, when they came out, they weren't entitled to employment insurance benefits that they'd paid into because of that period of incarceration. So that was one factor.

Admittedly, the evidence isn't there in terms of whether the benefits will be more conducive to rehabilitation, but that was part of the process. I think it's in all citizens' interest to have people, when they come out of prison, come out rehabilitated and not commit further crimes. But that was part of the other rationale for it, and of course I mentioned the premiums they paid.

So your reference about it being a privilege and not something that the worker is entitled to as a result of the work they did—

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

Ms. Crowder, I was referring to the privileged position that a convicted felon is in. I was—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Other Canadians are entitled to that extension. Are you suggesting that it's also a privilege for others who are entitled to that extension, instead of the assumption that it's legislated in the employment insurance legislation?

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

You know what? You're quite right when you say that Canadians pay into the EI program and they're entitled to benefits. That's their right. They pay into it. But they pay into it under some regulations that state there's a 52-week qualifying period. You have to work a number of hours, and then you have another 52 weeks when you must take your benefits. Everybody knows that, and they know that as long as they fit into that and pay their premiums, they have every right, as you put it, to receive benefits.

What I'm saying is that in some circumstances in the act, as I've pointed out, under certain circumstances—illness, injury, etc.—you can apply for an extension. If you were—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Harris, but I'll just interrupt you there. As you're aware, I only have five minutes, and I want to come back to another question.

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

But let me say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Mr. Harris, I think you were just about done, so in fairness, finish your answer and then we'll move on.

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

Okay.

Let me say this: I don't think many Canadians will agree that someone who breaks the law and goes to prison should be put in a favoured position...as someone who is a law-abiding citizen and works hard and complies with society's vision of being a good citizen.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

The point we would agree on is that the extension should be applicable to people, other people, not removing the extension from people who have paid into the system.

I have one final point. We all know that our citizens in our communities are all the same taxpayers, and in effect this is another example of downloading to the provinces, because if they're not entitled to employment insurance when they come out of prison, they may well go on the provincial welfare system. So all you're doing is passing the buck from the federal government to the provincial government one more time, in the same kind of light as Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill.

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

Of course I don't agree with your conclusion. My conclusion on your comments is that I'm certainly not seeking to change the whole EI Act. It works very well. We have one of the best employment insurance acts I think in the world. This bill seeks to take away a preferred position of a convicted felon as opposed to someone who obeys the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We'll move to Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for coming to the committee this afternoon. As I understand it, the thrust of your bill is the issue of fairness. Of course I agree with you: there is no reason why convicted felons should receive greater latitude in their EI benefits as compared with law-abiding Canadians. As you mentioned, they have a choice, of course. They have a choice to play by the rules or break the rules and go to jail.

Now, very often I like to call my constituents of Calgary Northeast the hardest working in Canada. While I believe that's true, Mr. Harris, I also know that there are many other constituencies with hard-working constituents in this country. So it makes me wonder, what would the average Canadian think if they were told that criminals—people who disturb the peace, refuse to play by the rules, and harm their fellow citizens—were being given special consideration, while serving behind bars, for their EI claims? I think I know the answer from my constituents. Of course they would say it is not fair.

Can you tell me what reactions you found from your constituents and also across the board?

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

I would suggest, given the experience I've had in talking about this around my riding and in other parts of the province of B.C., that probably 99.9% of hard-working Canadians do not know that this favoured position exists in the EI Act for someone who goes to jail and wants to come out and start collecting EI. When I tell them about it, as I said, their number one response is, “You've got to be kidding. How can that happen?” When I tell them that I'm going to try to fix it, they say “Good for you.”

That's the response. They can't believe that favoured position is in there.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Harris, how do you respond to the critics who insist that convicted felons should have greater access to employment insurance than law-abiding citizens?

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

I suggest that maybe the felons shouldn't have broken the law in the first place. They had a choice to work hard and try to contribute to society. Somewhere along the line they made a choice that they wanted to break the law. There are rules that govern things when people break the law, and one of them certainly should not be that you now go into a special group of people who have a preferred position over a law-abiding group when it comes to collecting EI.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You have about two minutes, if you wish to use them.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Brad will use them.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'd be happy to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Go ahead, Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Harris, obviously you did a fair bit of research on all kinds of exemptions and qualifications with regard to receiving EI or not. I think Ms. Crowder was trying to say that everybody who pays in is eligible. Well, we know that's not true. We know that under the current EI system there are areas where people don't qualify even though they've paid in.

Would this not just be another one of those exemptions that would say that under this particular circumstance you have been convicted to a prison term, and therefore you are not entitled to collect? It wouldn't be any different from some of the other exemptions we already have in EI, where people are not eligible to collect. Is that not correct?

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

Everybody is eligible to collect if they pay into it under the rules of the EI Act, under the qualification period to receiving benefits. I mean, you can still go to jail and collect EI. For example, if you go to jail for a month, even, and they take a month out of the 52-week qualifying period, you still have 11 months in which to work the required number of weeks. Going to jail for a very short time does not disqualify you from applying and getting EI in your benefit period.

What I'm saying is that if you're in jail for a period of time that takes you out of that qualifying period, the average person cannot get an extension just because they want one. But someone who's been in jail because they broke the law can apply for an extension under the act the way it is, and I want to repeal those sections to take that favoured position out of the act.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Just one quick supplementary question.

Isn't the principle of EI, though—being on it and being eligible to receive it—that you're available to go to work? How can someone who is incarcerated be available to go to work?

We've changed the name to “employment insurance” for a reason. It's really not unemployment insurance; it's employment insurance, because people who collect it are expected to be available if there is a job for them to take. That's the principle of the system. If you're in jail, you're clearly unavailable to go to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

A short response if you could, Mr. Harris.