Evidence of meeting #20 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was period.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I'm trying to figure it out.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
We have to be cognizant of the fact that there are people being held in remand while they're waiting to go to jail who are then found not guilty or are found guilty. There are others who will have access to their EI, maybe while they're not in remand and are in the community.
I think this is something that has not been thought about and needs to be thought about in deciding on this bill. There will be people who will have access to their EI before they're found guilty.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The law, as it is applied now, says that if people qualify for benefits, they will be able to get their benefits for the period for which they qualify. If they are not in remand and they lose their jobs and are looking for work, they will be able to qualify for EI. Clearly, if they are in remand, for the period they are in remand they will not be able to collect benefits, because they will not, obviously, be working. The way the law will apply in the future is that if they are found guilty, they will not be able to get an extension for the weeks they were in remand. In the end, it will always depend on how long it takes for a decision and on how much time they will be on EI.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
With the amendment to the bill that amends the sections in the act, those who are in pre-trial custody who are found not guilty will have their period extended.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
They will have their period extended, yes, if found not guilty.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Still, at the end of the day, there will be some discriminatory law in place. People will have access or will not have access. I just wanted that to be clear. If someone is in jail for a certain period of time while in remand, and that person is found guilty, during the length of time the person is in jail, he or she will not have access to EI.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
No, because the person will not be available for work, which is a prerequisite to having access to EI.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
On the extension part, I'm just saying that this is something that needs to be looked at more carefully.
The only other comment I wanted to make was with respect to offenders charged because of self-defence. It was not really a choice they made. They were still charged, even though they were acting in self-defence. It wasn't a choice they made. That's what we hear over and over again.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Of course, if they were charged and they were found to have been acting in self-defence, they would be acquitted, and those acquitted would not be affected.
Anyhow, you can answer if you wish, and if not, we'll move on.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
As you mentioned, people who are not found guilty will get the extension period. That becomes a decision on the part of the criminal system as to whether they are found guilty or not guilty.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Monsieur Beauséjour, for being here today.
Not all Canadians who pay into EI are eligible to collect it. Is that correct? There are people who pay in, many people who pay in, who are not eligible to collect, because there is an eligibility rule; there is an issue with respect to their claims and they don't qualify. So we already have Canadians, many Canadians, who pay in but due to the eligibility rules are not able to claim back when they are no longer employed. Is that not correct?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
That's correct.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Give me an example of some of those eligibility rules whereby an individual is not permitted to collect, even though he or she is no longer working.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It would be a person who decides to quit work and be unemployed for the period during which he or she is looking for new work. In a lot of cases, students will not be eligible for that reason. They will quit their jobs to return to university or school. All those individuals who do not meet the number-of-hours requirement to qualify for EI, all those individuals who have worked, let's say, fewer than 600 hours over the last 52 weeks, would not qualify for EI. A person who has worked 500 hours and has been paying into EI will not receive any benefit until he or she has reached the number-of-hours threshold.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
If you're fired with cause—dismissed from your employment with cause—you're not eligible to collect EI, is that correct?
February 6th, 2012 / 5:15 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
If you are dismissed with cause, it would be a reason for not being able to collect EI.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Normally, if someone was fired with cause, there was obviously something they did. There was an action they took as an employee, which led to them being dismissed from the workplace—an action or a cause that they took upon themselves to do, much like committing a crime. They have in essence made a decision, and they have done something in the workplace to give rise to them being fired with cause. They would then also be ineligible to collect EI benefits, is that correct?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It's always difficult to make a comparison about both circumstances, but clearly, if an individual is dismissed with cause, they will not be eligible for EI.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I believe in your opening comments you referred to EI as a temporary.... I have to look at the specific words that you used, but I believe you referred to it as a temporary income support to replace lost employment income to persons who are unemployed. And we talked about some of that.
So the principle of your right to collect EI is that you are available to work. While you are collecting, or while you're in the eligibility period, the idea of the system is that you should be available to get a new job. That's the idea, right?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I will comment that for regular benefits that is the case. I think for other types of benefits you do not always have to be available for work. I think there are some cases....
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
That's the general philosophy around the program.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Oh, sure.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
So if someone's incarcerated, how are they available to work? If you're in jail, how are you available to work under this program? I realize you're not receiving EI benefits while you are incarcerated, but one of the current provisions of the act is that it allows that individual to apply for an extension for benefits once they're no longer incarcerated.
So my point—and one of the reasons why I think Mr. Harris has brought this to the attention of Parliament—is that's a very significant loophole. The people who are incarcerated are getting benefits that other Canadians are not entitled to, because we say, “Well, that's okay. You're not available to work while you're in jail for two months, but as soon as you get out, you can apply for this extension that everybody else, who was out looking for a job and working hard trying to find a job during that same two-month period, is not eligible to get.”
Is that not unfair and inconsistent in the way we're currently running the system?