Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to rise to present my bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As you may know, section 14 of this Act prevents persons who are obliged to exercise their civic duty as jurors from receiving unemployment insurance benefits when they are without work.
You will no doubt agree that this is clearly unfair and that many persons find themselves between a rock and a hard place when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens. In addition, I feel that this section runs counter to the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Act was passed more than 50 years ago to provide all Canadians with income security and not to punish them when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that persons in temporary service as jurors are not regarded as disqualified from a benefit merely because of their participation in such an activity.
At present anyone performing their civic duty while collecting unemployment insurance benefits is penalized by the federal government for no valid or obvious reason. Anyone performing jury duty for more than two days is no longer considered eligible for benefits since the law considers that he or she is not available for work. Although jurors are usually granted a stipend for expenses incurred while performing their duties, anyone submitting unemployment insurance claim cards to receive the difference in UI benefits will receive nothing.
As some of the hon. members may be aware, I originally introduced a bill similar to this one in the last Parliament. While similar in some respects, Bill C-216 includes a number of improvements over the earlier bill. I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House how I was made aware of this flaw in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
When I was originally referred to this case I thought the situation was the result of a simple misunderstanding and so did the person in question. To our surprise, we both came to find out that such a regulation was in fact on the books. The best way of explaining it is to read this letter which I received a couple of years ago now from one of my constituents. It was a letter to the editor and as it happened before it was published the editor phoned me up for a comment and I thought it was a misunderstanding. But I will read parts of it.
To the Editor:
In September I experienced the luck of having been laid off after paying maximum unemployment insurance premiums for the past 25 years. In November I experienced the luck again of having been selected as a juror for the murder trial recently held in Campbellton. I clenched my teeth and resigned myself to the fact that I had a dirty job to do and might as well do it to the best of my ability.
Having never followed trial proceedings previously, I found the whole process rather interesting. The mental stress of trying to absorb nine days of testimony and summations was emotionally draining.
At the conclusion of the trial I requested and was given a letter which stated the days I had been present in court and the amount of money that I would receive from the court. I mailed this letter along with my UI card on November 27.
Needless to say, this woman was refused unemployment benefits. She goes on to say:
I am outraged to say the least. We are taxed to death by every level of government known to man. My tax money helped pay the salaries of the participants in this case, including the RCMP, the prosecution staff, the public defender, the sheriff's department, the court staff, not to mention the room and board of the prisoner. In retrospect I could have ignored the summons to appear for jury selection and I would have been fined $50 like the dozen or so other good citizens who failed to show up. I could have requested a letter be sent to the court by a sympathetic doctor exempting me. I could have lied and said I knew someone connected with the case. I could have lied on my UI claim. Someone suggested that anyone showing up for jury selection with a rope thrown over a shoulder would probably be rejected by the defence team. However, I did none of these things. I tried to be a good citizen. But I have come to the conclusion that when dealing with big brother honesty is really not the best policy.
That puts it in its context. To go on:
After receiving notice of this letter another problem came to my attention in other provinces whereby members of the justice system, honourable judges, recognized that there was indeed a problem with the system.
Here I want to quote from an article that appeared in the Moncton Times , a New Brunswick paper, referring to something that happened in Nova Scotia. The headline says: Calls UI rule Stupid-Judge excuses potential jurors''. I will read it. It is short:A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge'-that is not a regular judge, not just a lawyer, not just an MP walking down the street making these comments. Remember it is a Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice-``excused nine people from jury duty Tuesday because they would not be able to collect unemployment benefits if the trial took more than two days. Canada Employment states that people must be available for work to qualify for payments''.
Justice Nathanson said: "I think it is a stupid ruling. But who am I?". He is a Supreme Court Justice from Nova Scotia. "Who am I?". Here we have a Supreme Court Justice for Nova Scotia telling us that there is a regulation that is stupid. It is very obvious it is stupid. Someone is forced to do something. They are not available for work, they are forced to do it. It is not their own doing if they are not available for work. They are forced to do it as a good, honest citizen. It goes further than that because it goes to the root of the justice system.
I am not a legal mind. I do not have a background in the legal profession but I do know that every accused person has a right to be judged by their peers. Judges, and they have been across Canada in various provinces, have been excusing jurors who are receiving UI because they would lose their UI. They have been excusing them from their jury duty.
If an accused who is receiving UI goes to court and wants to be judged by his or her peers, odds are that there will be no one in the jury box that would be considered his or her peer. So it goes to the root of the justice system. We have to correct that. There is only one way to correct it and that is by simple amendment here.
I would ask members to throw away their prejudices if they have any. We have been told that Parliament has to be more responsive to the people. This is not Guy Arseneault's private members' bill, this is Canada's private members' bill. This is a problem with the system. I am just someone here who is trying to correct it along the way. This is part of the process.
I ask my colleagues today to look at it on an individual basis. Go back to your constituents. It has more than likely happened in every constituency in Canada. If you look hard enough that problem will be there.
Is it a cost to the system? No, because the juror who is excused is getting UI anyway. They are going to get their UI. They just do not go on jury duty anymore. I ask members to look at that.
I would also like to point out that some members might claim today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility.
I say again to all the members of this Chamber that the justice system is the responsibility of every one of us. It is a personal responsibility.
If they are against this, some members are going to tell us today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility. It is not. It is everyone's responsibility. We cannot wait for another jurisdiction to correct a problem if we are aware of a problem. That is what we are here for. This is a law and a regulation here that we can change to make the system better.
I say to you as well that the injustices that mar the system and can be put right should be rectified by all the levels of government. In the matter at hand, it seems to me that an injustice was done and that another will be committed by our group if we do not agree with this bill. I will try not to be too biased, because I feel in all honesty that it is a good bill. Moreover, when you are biased, you risk losing people's support sometimes. I am compelled to say that if others claim it is a matter for the provinces, they are trying to shirk their own responsibilities. I think they are trying to pass their responsibilities off on others.
I would like to go back to what concerns us today and correct an injustice in the system.
I would like to inform hon. members that at this point in time I have the support of the majority of members of Parliament. I have the support of the human resources minister. I have the undertaking from the chairman of the human resources committee that it would take the bill and look at it quickly. I am not saying it would pass it. He did not say that, but it would be ready to study it.
I would ask members today to take a second look at the bill and consider sending it to committee. I leave that with the House. It is a request made by a constituent. We are here representing constituents. We have heard a lot about the justice system in the last couple of weeks from all parties.
Everyone has a concern. I have heard about the Young Offenders Act. I have concerns about that too. At the same time here is an item that can improve the system. I am waiting to see how my colleagues respond. I hope it is in a positive way.