Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll call the meeting to order.

Before we get to the clause-by-clause consideration, during the last meeting there was a question to HRSD. The question was, how many people have applied for the extension of the qualifying period, and how many of those were actually incarcerated? HRSDC has advised the clerk that they were not able to provide an answer to the question that was asked on Monday, February 6. I want to bring that to your attention.

I want to get into the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-316, pursuant to the order of the day, which reads as follows: pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 30, 2011, Bill C-316, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), was referred to us.

I will go through each of the clauses of the bill.

(On clause 1)

Clause 1 reads as follows:

Paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act is repealed.

Is there any discussion on clause 1?

I understand there may be an amendment to clause 1.

Does someone wish to move the amendment to clause 1?

Yes, Ms. Leitch.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I think the amendments have been pre-circulated. I'm happy to read them into the record, but I think they have been pre-circulated.

Would you like me to read them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

If you would, maybe read the first, on clause 1. We're dealing with clause 1; this would be an amendment to it.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Sure, that's no problem. It is that Bill C-316, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 1 with the following:

Insurance Act is replaced by the following:

(b) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and was not found guilty of the offence for which the person was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

The amendment has been moved. We're open to receiving any comments you may have with respect to that amendment. Or if others have comments, just indicate so, and we'll put you on the speaking list and go from there.

Is there anything to add on that amendment?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

No. The only comment I'll make is that our moving forward with this bill, Bill C-316, has been moved forward by the Conservative member in an effort to create fairness amongst all Canadians with respect to this portion of the Employment Insurance Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to creating fairness in the Employment Insurance Act, I would suggest that if the government were actually interested in creating fairness, what it would have done is look at the cases in which people didn't qualify for an extension of the qualifying period or benefit period and make changes there. The case that the proposer of the bill brought forward would have been a really good example of changes to the Employment Insurance Act that would have benefited that particular person.

Of course, I'm not going to go over the extensive testimony that we heard from Elizabeth Fry and John Howard about why it's important to maintain this section of the act.

Despite the fact that this amendment would actually change an oversight in the initially proposed legislation, the NDP will not be supporting the amendment because we do not support the principles of the bill.

So although this would correct an error in the bill, we will not be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right.

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I want to echo what my colleague just indicated and remind the members here of what we heard in the testimony, that this basically creates a civil penalty in addition to one that was provided by the courts. Again, I'll reiterate that if there is equality to be had—which we think there is—we need to look at the circumstances in which people were denied. And rightly so; people have paid into this. In the event that they find themselves in a situation wherein they're not employed, they should rightly have access to it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Are there any...?

Yes, Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I don't know if it goes specifically at this clause, but just in general terms, 80% of the incarcerated women in this country are in because of poverty-related crimes, 39% because they had no ability to pay a fine.

The bill impacts on a fairly significant small number of people anyway. I'm not seeing the huge saving to the public coffers, but it would allow some source of income for these people once they're released. I agree with Carol with regard to the testimony given that this looks like another civil action past the criminal penalty they've just worked off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right, your point is noted.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I point out to my colleagues on both sides of the table that those were the witnesses' opinions and nothing more than their opinions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's a fair point.

I'll go to Mr. Cuzner first and after that Monsieur Patry.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

The facts are facts. The statistics are facts that we all have access to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll deal with Mr. Patry, and we'll come back for you to respond to that.

Monsieur Patry.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The only thing I want to say is that we are going to cause even more damage.

This measure was put in place to help people being released from prison to rehabilitate, to find a job, and so on. We are still going to adopt legislation that will cause more difficulties for these people. We aren't going to lift them out of misery; we're going to give them even more misery.

I believe in rehabilitation. But with this measure, there is going to be less of it.

That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Mr. McColeman responds to Mr. Cuzner.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I wasn't disputing the numbers, the statistics, that Mr. Cuzner presented. I was talking about Ms. Hughes' comment and his comment that it added to the penalty, that it added a new civil penalty. That was their opinion. There are no statistics around that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I'll just maybe clarify that point. I think my recollection of the witness was that if those who came out of custody did not have the extension, which would provide to them the benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, that would have an impact upon them. It's maybe in that light that they were discussing it.

In any event, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for that clarification. I believe what the witnesses were indicating is that people who have been convicted of a crime serve a sentence, and therefore they have been punished for that crime.

I think the witnesses were trying to make the case that by adding another punishment on top of the time they'd spent in jail, in fact there was now a criminal penalty and a civil penalty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Right, and I should clarify that. The witnesses said that given that they were already sentenced and everything was taken into consideration on top of that, they would lose the extension.

The other side of that argument was that persons weren't necessarily entitled to that extension except that it was provided for by statute. So the policy could be to take that extension or the type of people who were allowed to have that extension away, I suppose on the basis that they had some control over their actions by committing the crime and therefore placed themselves outside of the position of work.

Those are kinds of arguments, but I don't think we want to get into the essence of it. You've both made a good point. Do you want to clarify that further?

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

I have just two quick points on that, Mr. Chair.

First of all, much has been made about choice, and many other people who are eligible for an extension, I would argue, don't always end up in those circumstances where it's a choice, where it's collecting WCB, worker's compensation, at the provincial level. I hardly think that people who get injured on the job have chosen to get injured on the job. So some of the other extensions to the benefit period and qualifying period equally are not choice.

The other point—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Of course, if you're injured, you don't do that by choice, but you might commit a crime by choice.