Evidence of meeting #21 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I thought we were dealing with one clause of this act. We seem to be discussing the whole act and the purpose and the intent of that act. Stick to one clause. This is the clause we're dealing with, and it's pretty straightforward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I appreciate that point, but usually when we get past the first clause it moves pretty quickly. In this case, I'm going to allow the member to finish her comment. Then I think we should put it to a vote.
The point is made, but go ahead and finish.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I appreciate that point of order. We will not be belabouring this throughout every clause that comes forward. We're laying the groundwork for how we're going to vote on the amendments and the bill, and once we've done that, I don't think we need to reiterate it at every amendment. Our intent is not to filibuster this particular piece of legislation, even though we don't agree with it.
I have just two other quick points around the choice.
The point I was attempting to make was that I'm not sure choice or no choice is really the fundamental argument around this particular piece of legislation. There are times when people end up committing crimes, and I think there are probably circumstances that would say there was no choice involved. I think somebody mentioned the self-defence argument—and people do end up in jail as a result of self-defence—saying that women who have been subjected to violence then commit a crime. I would argue that there is not a lot of choice in that.
I think the other piece of this is that this is a longstanding piece of legislation, or a part of the Employment Insurance Act, and it's interesting that, for example, the qualifying period was extended in 1959 and then the benefit period in 1971, and that was under Conservative and Liberal governments. This is a longstanding practice, and to change it now for reasons that don't seem clear...and in fact the Progressive Conservative minister—and we all had this information—just talked about the fact that there is an issue around rehabilitation, and it's unfortunate enough to have punishment imposed by the courts. So parties of both political stripes have supported this in the past. I think it's unfathomable that we change this at this point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Not to add further to a whole lot of debate, but under this legislation, with the amendment, if people actually were acting in self-defence, they would be acquitted and—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Well, in law if you acted in self-defence, you would be acquitted and this section would apply. It's not germane to what we're discussing; it's just a passing thought I had.
Go ahead, Ms. Leitch.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I thought you were going to call the question, sir, so I guess my only closing comment would be two items.
One is that I'm hard-pressed as a physician not to state that an individual who is injured on the job shouldn't be equated with someone who has actually committed a crime against a victim. I think the victims of crime would feel quite strongly about that, as would the patients who are being equated to that.
The second is that this is an insurance program—employment insurance. This is not a benefit, so I think we do need to stay focused on the fact that this is the Employment Insurance Act.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Now we're about to call the question, so with your indulgence we'll allow Ms. Crowder to finish her point. I think she will be the last speaker, because I think everybody has made their points and we need to get on with it.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Just to absolutely clarify the record, I was not equating somebody who had been injured on the job with somebody in the courts. I was simply pointing out the fact that under the legislation, both parties are entitled to an extension. I'm not equating anybody with anybody. That's what the legislation says. It's in there, black and white, passed by Parliament. So don't try to pin that kind of language on me, because it's simply not true.
The second item is that I also thank the parliamentary secretary for pointing out that this is an insurance scheme, and that's exactly why we're opposing this particular piece of legislation. We are talking about people who have paid their premiums. The workers and their employers have paid their premiums, so what they're actually going to be entitled to, if this legislation were defeated, is continuing to collect benefits for which they have paid into under the insurance scheme. That's all I have to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Your point is made. All right. I won't add any more fuel to the fire.
I'll call the question.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay. The same number are for it as amended and the same number are opposed.
(On clause 2)
Let's go to clause 2. I understand there is an amendment to clause 2, if you'd like to propose it.
February 8th, 2012 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The proposal is that Bill C-316 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 7 on page 1 with the following:
(a) confined in a jail, a penitentiary or other similar institution and was not found guilty of the offence for which the claimant was being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
All right. Now obviously the essence of the amendment is similar in nature, but I will leave it open for anyone who wanted to add a point. If no one wishes to speak, we'll call for the vote.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3)
I suppose if you wanted to move clause 3 in the form circulated, you wouldn't necessarily have to read it, but you can if you wish.
I'm just seeing that we're getting to some lengthier clauses, but if you wish to read it, you can. You don't have to.
Conservative
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I move that Bill C-316 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:
(a) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution and were not found guilty of the offence for which they were being held or any other offence arising out of the same transaction;
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We will proceed to clause 4, which is a new clause being added. That means that the same arguments wouldn't apply with respect to clause 4 that applied to the other clauses, for the reasons that are stated therein.
Do you want to introduce that clause on a stand-alone basis?
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Sure. I move that Bill C-316 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 1 the following:
Paragraphs 10(10)(a) and 152.11(11)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act, as enacted by sections 2 and 3, respectively, do not apply to the benefit period of a claimant or a self-employed person, as the case may be, in respect of any week for which the claimant or the self-employed person was confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution before the coming into force of this act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
This would be a transitional sort of provision so that the act would apply forward and not retrospectively. That's what I would understand.
Does anybody have any questions on that or discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
There is a new clause that is presently in the circulated material as clause 4. Obviously it will now become clause 5.
Do you want to introduce that new clause, Ms. Leitch?
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I move that Bill C-316 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 1 the following:
5. This act comes into force on the first Sunday after the day on which it receives royal assent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We've heard testimony from an HRSD official as to why that would be. They want to basically coincide the coming into force of the act with the employment insurance period.
Are there any questions or discussion on that?
(Amendment agreed to)
That brings us to the stage now where we go to the title of the bill, “An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration)”.
Shall the title pass?