That is why, in the case of maternity, the provision should be dealt with differently.
You have not followed. Is it the translation?
[English]
Mr. Leduc: It's section 145 we're discussing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No, but that is why I am asking the question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Leduc: She's asking a question under section 145.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I think Madam Lalonde is on a different section. She's on the panel piece, on the clawback provisions relative to maternity or pregnancy leave, to benefits gained.I'd suggested we move on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you. I will come back to it.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, you had some comments about this?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'm having some great difficulty with the opposition and what they continue to use as their position. They take the extreme case and then they argue that - remember now, Mr. Chairman, when we go to first dollar coverage, and the fact we go from weeks to hours, there are going to be 90,000 more people who are going to qualify for the first time. Now when you take a look at the 2%, which is such a small number, and the people who will benefit, that's a problem.
They don't want to look at the good side of the story and the improvements and the people who will finally qualify. They just want to talk about this very small number. Because one friend of Madam Lalonde's came to the committee and said this can't be done, I don't think that qualifies as everybody across Canada.
The Chairman: I think we've exhausted the debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Why is he trying to offend me, Mr. Chairman? This is not one of my friends. It is a citizen in my riding. These are professional women who are thinking of having children. That's normal.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, Madam Lalonde, I find it quite normal that people would use examples to illustrate their points. I also find it quite normal that when the points of debate are exhausted, we move to the vote.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but what is not normal is that we are always being accused of not doingour job.
[English]
The Chairman: I know. Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I understand your reaction very well. However, I would like you to know that the paternalistic attitude has not really come from our side. We have not caused or encouraged the paternalistic attitude of the parliamentary secretary. I would appreciate it if the remarks were consistently directed to the merits alone of the questions. It would be greatly preferable to -
Underscoring those aspects of a Clause that are weak in our view, when we are in the opposition, seems to me completely normal. If we had been elected to applaud the government, I could understand this, but that is not our role. Our role is to ask questions to see if there is something that ought to be changed. The issue is simply that this should be done in the proper climate.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I have just one point. Now I know a lot of members didn't have the opportunity to stay up all night the other night, but you might want to read the comments of Mr. Crête about the Liberal Party and what he thinks on a personal nature of what we were doing - and a lot of his other members - during that little filibuster.
For him to make the comment that I'm the only one who sometimes tends to get a little personal, give me a break. We know what was said on the record during the filibuster. They attacked the Liberal Party. They attacked us as members for all sorts of nonsense.
A voice: Shame, shame.
Mr. Nault: All I'm telling you is tit for tat. I don't have any problems. I can take it. I've got thick skin. I used to run a major union. But if he has problems whenever I speak - he spends more time attacking me than the bill. I think quite frankly that's a good sign that I must be doing a perfect job as a parliamentary secretary. Not perfect - I'm still working on it.
.1605
My problem is that the members opposite - including Mrs. Brown, who's not here today - have such thin skin that every time I make a comment they don't like and I make a speech or something that takes a run at what they're saying, they say they take it as a personal attack. Let me remind them that all I'm telling them is what I think is factual, what should be on the record and I'm trying to make sure it's on the record on behalf of the government.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, I can report to you that the minister is very happy with your work as parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Crête, followed by Mrs. Brown.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You wish to speak?
[English]
Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to inform the committee that I am not well. I haven't been well all day.
The Chairman: You don't sound very good.
Mrs. Brown: I don't need your sympathy, Mr. Nault. Obviously you were making a point with your references to my attendance at this committee. I have asked you - and I thought rather politely yesterday had made my point - about your references to my appearance or non-appearance at this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am bloody well fed up with Mr. Nault's comments about my appearance or non-appearance at this committee. I am not well and I've had it up to here with Mr. Nault. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nault: I'm very sorry to hear that, Mrs. Brown.
Mrs. Brown: You are not. I don't want to hear a peep out of you. You make me sick.
Mr. Nault: I obviously must have, because you are sick.
Let's go to the vote, Mr. Chairman.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to on division
On Clause 24 - Regulations for work-sharing benefits
The Chairman: We move to Clause 24. Are there any comments?
Mrs. Brown: I won't be back. I'm not putting up with this.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The Clause on work-sharing includes a lot of...
[English]
The Chairman: We're still on Clause 24. Mr. Crête, do you have some questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, I have no questions.
[English]
Clause 24 agreed to on division
On Clause 25 - Status of claimants
The Chairman: There's an amendment, I understand.
Mr. Nault: We're on 25?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Nault: We're moving so fast, Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble keeping up.
I move that Clause 25 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out line 7 on page 27 and substituting the following, with the marginal note ``Status of claimants'':
``25. (1) For the purposes of this Part, a claim-''
and (b) by adding immediately after line 23 on page 27 the following, with the marginal note ``No appeal'':
``(2) A decision of the Commission about the referral of a claimant to a course, program or other employment activity mentioned in subsection (1) is not subject to appeal under sections 114 or 115.''
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, on the amendment. When it says, in part (c), ``by adding'', is it added afterline 22?
It states:
``(b) participating in any other employment activity for which assistance has been provided for the claimant under prescribed employment benefits and to which the Commission, or an authority that the Commission designates, has referred the claimant.
(2) A decision of the Commission about the referral of a claimant to a course, program or other employment activity mentioned in subsection (1) is not subject to appeal under sections 114 or 115.''
I have read the Clause, in any event. Excuse me. I simply wanted to make the link between the Clause in the bill and the amendment. If you wish, I can repeat it.
.1610
It is paragraph 25(b). You are adding, in the amendment:
``(2) A decision of the Commission about the referral of a claimant to a course, program or other employment activity mentioned in subsection (1) is not subject to appeal under sections 114 or 115.''
It seems to me that this Clause withdraws the right of appeal from someone who is unemployed in the case where the decision was made to allow him or not to allow him to take a course. These are situations that are often found among people who are taking repeated employability programs year after year.
Is my interpretation of the amendment correct? The fact that he is not allowed a right of appeal will exclude this unemployed person from any form of application for review of a decision concerning him, for example, if an officer decides that such an individual cannot take a particular course or that, between two available courses, he must choose this one rather than that.
It is very dangerous, in my opinion, not to have an appeal mechanism. There are really some circumstances in which a person... In our ridings we see these situations in which an individual wanted to enrol in a course and had a run-in with the officers in the employment centre. Sometimes it is personal and the individual comes to our office to complain. Some people are bad-tempered and may get a cool reception from an employment centre officer. These things happen.
No, no, I have not made any allusions at all.
It seems to me that these decisions should be subject to appeal. I am therefore going to vote against the amendment. I am now thinking about the advisability of proposing a subamendment. Is it necessary to write out a subamendment and formulate it as provided?
The amendment that I might prepare would be to remove the word ``not''. The provision would then read:
``(2) A decision of the Commission about the referral of a claimant to a course, program or other employment activity mentioned in subsection (1) is subject to appeal under sections 114 or 115.''
The purpose of the subamendment is to allow the possibility of an appeal for people who find themselves in such situations. I am going to think about the wording of this amendment. IfI understand correctly, it is taken subject to tabling the text as such. Can I simply write it out for you?
[English]
The Chairman: I'm going to answer the question first. We're going to deal with this in the same fashion we dealt with the previous one, which means we're going to stand this until the production and photocopying of the -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We can still argue.
Mr. Crête: We can argue on -
[English]
The Chairman: Let me finish speaking. When it gets distributed, then we're going to deal with that. We don't have an option other than to just stand the amendment.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: On the Clause, not on the amendment, I wonder if the staff could tell us how this compares to the current situation in terms of appeals on unemployment programs.
Ms Smith: There is no appeal to referrals in the employment programs. This amendment has been proposed because it was an inadvertent oversight in carrying forward this general provision from the UI Act into Bill C-12.
Mr. Easter: So this bill is really just incorporating within Bill C-12, or this Clause, what currently exists in the current legislation, and there haven't been, as I understand it...or at leastI haven't had many problems with that in my particular riding.
I don't see the need for the amendment, but okay, thank you.
.1615
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Does that mean we're tabling the amendment?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, that's right. The amendment and the Clause will stand.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: And we will hold the discussion at the time of consideration.
[English]
On Clause 26 - Benefits not earnings
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Lalonde: I would just like to have an explanation because we didn't have an opportunity to have those who can answer our questions with us.
It says:
- ``...are not earnings from employment.''
Mr. Michael Dixon (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Essentially that's correct because the benefits would be paid to people in circumstances where they are employed.
We wanted to avoid the situation where Revenue Canada might take the position that these are earnings from employment and therefore there would be employers' premiums for Canada Pension Plan that would have to be deducted. This ensures that other regulatory agencies of the government will not treat the benefits they receive as unemployment insurance as pensionable earnings for which employers' premiums for Canada Pension Plan would have to be deducted.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But with regard to income tax, does this mean that you do not make deductions for taxes, that this is non-taxable income?
[English]
Mr. Dixon: There's already provision elsewhere in the Income Tax Act for treating unemployment insurance or employment insurance benefits as other income, so there's already a special provision in the Income Tax Act for requiring people who receive unemployment insurance benefits to include them in their income and pay tax on them.
We wanted to avoid the situation where because it was being paid in an employment situation, there would be the question of what provision would apply, whether it would be characterized as employment income or whether it could also be captured under another provision of the Income Tax Act.
If this was treated as income from employment for income tax purposes, there would be certain obligations on the commission to deduct, under other provisions of the Income Tax Act, amounts from those benefits for income tax purposes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Well, it won't be difficult because in Chapter 4 we have earning supplements. So, part of it will be wages, and the other part will be a supplement. And the amount of the supplement will not be included in the wages. Right? That supplement will be treated as unemployment benefits, right? But the people referred to in Chapter 4 don't receive unemployment insurance benefits.
[English]
Mr. Dixon: I'm not sure I understand your reference to chapter 4.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I'm sorry, I meant to say Part IV.
[English]
Mr. Dixon: Part IV deals with the collection of premiums, so again the commission wouldn't be required to pay premiums on the benefits it pays to people. Do you follow?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you for that clarification. I thought this referred to the other part of the legislation where it talks about employment benefits. Thank you for clearing up the confusion.
[English]
Clause 26 agreed to on division
On Clause 27 - Disqualification - general
The Chairman: I understand there's an amendment, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is.
I move that Clause 27 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 5, on page -
The Chairman: Can we dispense with the reading, Mr. Nault? I just want to get -
An hon. member: Dispense.
Mr. Nault: No, we were told -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We have enough problems as it is.
.1620
[English]
The Chairman: The only reason I brought it up was because Mr. Crête was contemplating it at one time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: In the meantime, he's paying no attention. He isn't even listening.
[English]
The Chairman: I don't want to get into any power struggles here.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, I want to repeat what I said earlier - specifically that on request, we could dispense with reading them.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I don't want to get between friends.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, you're right. But he wasn't here at the time.
[English]
The Chairman: Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: I move that Clause 27 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out line 5 on page 28 and substituting the following:
- ``of obtaining that employment; or''
- ``employment assistance.
(1.1) A claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part if
(a) the Commission or an authority that the Commission designates has, with the agreement of the claimant, referred the claimant to a course or program of instruction or training or to any other employment activity for which assistance has been provided under employment benefits; and
(b) the Commission has terminated the referral because
(i) without good cause, the claimant has not attended or participated in the course, program or employment activity and, in the opinion of the Commission, it is unlikely that the claimant will successfully complete the course, program or employment activity
(ii) without good cause, the claimant has withdrawn from the course, program or employment activity, or
(iii) the organization providing the course, program or employment activity has expelled the claimant.''
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's right.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Could we be given an explanation first?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, could you kindly explain the impact of the amendment on the legislation?
Mr. Nault: Certainly. Paragraph 27(1)(e) sets out specific reasons for disqualifying claimants from part I, unemployment benefits. Such reasons are non-attendance, withdrawal, etc. This amendment will also provide for termination of the referral to a course or other employment activity by the commission before disqualification is imposed. However, such disqualification will not be imposed for occasional absences.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.
A question from Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This is connected to the amendment I was proposing earlier, to the effect that a person facing those particular circumstances have a right of appeal.
The current wording states that a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits if
``(a) the Commission or an authority that the Commission designates has, with the agreement of the claimant, referred the claimant to a course or program of instruction or training - ''
In the other Clause we looked at earlier, it says that such a claimant has no right of appeal. Basically what this means, then, is that a claimant really has no choice but to take the course he is referred to in the place suggested to him.
Just because you give someone the right to appeal does not necessarily mean he will win. It simply means that you set out an additional condition above and beyond the other reasons for refusing someone benefits.
Initially, we were talking about someone who would be refused benefits because he was unwilling to work. Here, however, benefits are going to be refused, not because someone has refused to work, but because he has refused to take a course. He will be disqualified for that reason alone and will not be able to appeal the decision.
The fact is, though, that courses or training programs are frequently given some distance from claimants' communities, and as I said earlier, in some cases, it's the officer who is laying down the law. Under the circumstances, I think it's important there be a right to appeal.
I'm just wondering whether we should not consider deleting from the government amendment the possibility of a claimant being disqualified if the Commission decides to send him somewhere he doesn't want to go.
Many different situations can arise. There are people with minor handicaps, for instance. I had to deal with a similar case just last week. A man who lives in Quebec and is currently receiving benefits from the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board was refused additional benefits when he had to drop a course because of intense back pain.
.1625
People are referred to courses that do not necessarily meet their specific needs. For instance, there may be a requirement for 15 participants before a specific course can be given and in order to get the required number, they may refer someone to the course whose benefits are coming to an end. That person may well prefer to take a different course, but if the course he is interested in is only starting a month and a half later and there is one starting in just three weeks, what is he supposed to do?
If he is referred to a course and he refuses to take it, his benefits are automatically cut off. That penalty seems rather harsh under the circumstances, because that same claimant paid premiums while he was working and should be entitled to receive benefits when he is in between jobs. Now the government wants to take away his right to receive benefits if he refuses to take a course recommended by... To me that seems rather excessive in relation to the objective. In my view, this is a disproportionately harsh penalty.
That's all I wanted to say.
The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde: Proposed sub-paragraph (1.1)(a) states that a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part if
``(a) the Commission or an authority that the Commission designates has, with the agreement of the claimant, referred the claimant to a course or program of instruction or training or to any other employment activity for which assistance has been provided under employment benefits;''
What is meant by the term ``assistance''? The five items described refer to self-employed workers, to training under unemployment benefits, and to the payment of courses and day-care services. Why disqualify claimants from receiving benefits? Does the $800 million figure that has been mentioned include the equivalent of unemployment insurance benefits?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: It's very important that we know what the $800 million represent in order to make a proper assessment. I don't imagine the entire amount will be used for active assistance measures.
Mr. Ken Kerr (Acting Director, Policy and Development Division, Human Resources Investment Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): Yes, $800 million will be set aside for employment benefits referred to in Clause 59 and Sub-Clause 60(4). That amount does not include insurance benefits for unemployed workers under Clauses 25 or 24.
Mrs. Lalonde: You're not answering my question.
Someone who benefits from a self-employment assistance or training program is entitled to continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Those unemployment insurance benefits are benefits that he has paid for. So why should he be disqualified? Sub-Clause 27(1) states, and I quote:
``27. (1) A claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part - ''
Mr. Grenon: A claimant can be disqualified if he leaves employment activity while drawing unemployment insurance benefits, as stated in Clause 25. A claimant who drops a course in which he has been registered without good cause can also be disqualified.
Mrs. Lalonde: I'm missing a page here.
Mr. Grenon: This is under Clause 27.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I understand. I will re-read it and get back to you.
Mr. Dubé: I want to make sure I understand. We're talking about two categories of people who are eligible to take part in training activities. Aren't the disqualification measures set out in Clause 25 aimed exclusively at people who have exhausted their normal benefits and end up in the extended period, or do they also apply to people who are just starting to receive regular unemployment insurance benefits?
.1630
Mr. Dixon: Yes.
Mr. Dubé: As far as I am concerned, that's highly punitive.
[English]
Mr. Dixon: The only people who are covered by this disqualification provision are people who are current claimants, who are referred to a course or program or other employment activity. If they've gone on the course with their agreement and without good cause have withdrawn from the course or been expelled from it, the provision imposes a disqualification. It applies only to those people who are regular UI claimants who are then referred to that course by the commission.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: There is clearly reason to be concerned. Are you sure that's what you want to do?
Mr. Dubé: I would like to describe a situation that arose in one training organization. In this case, group courses were being given and there began to be signs of hostility towards a specific minority. The training organization decided to expel the person who was being ostracized.
There are many similar cases. I guess what you're saying is someone should just refuse a training program or active measures right from the beginning, so as to avoid being penalized, right? That's what you call employment insurance!
Mr. Grenon: Under this provision, a person cannot be penalized or disqualified if he or she withdrew from the course or was expelled from it as a result of actions that were tantamount to misconduct.
The period of disqualification can be from one to six weeks. What we're really talking about here is the status quo, in the sense that this is a continuation of what already exists.
Mr. Dubé: Well, it certainly isn't very -
Mrs. Lalonde: I really think we should bring forward an amendment to provide for the right to appeal.
Mr. Grenon: But they already have such a right.
Mrs. Lalonde: They do?
Mr. Crête: Yes, yes.
An hon. member: Under Part II, not Part I.
Mrs. Lalonde: Are you sure?
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Lalonde: We should check that.
Mr. Crête: Sub-Clause (b) mentions the right to appeal but there is no such reference under Sub-Clause (a).
An hon. member: Very good.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a sub-amendment to the amendment which would involve deleting Sub-Clause (a) that immediately follows this paragraph:
``(1.1) A claimant is also disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part if:''
We would only keep Sub-Clause (b), and I would move that here we replace the words ``in the opinion of the Commission'' by ``when the Commission is certain'', and the words ``it is unlikely that the claimant will'' by the words ``that it would be impossible for the claimant to''. The end of the paragraph would thus read as follows:
...and when the Commission is certain that it would be impossible for the claimant to successfully complete the course, program or employment activity.
The purpose of the sub-amendment is to remove any possibility that the expression ``in the opinion of the Commission, it is unlikely that'' could be interpreted arbitrarily. The person assessing the situation would thus have much more leeway in terms of establishing whether it is appropriate or not. So, I'm suggesting that we say that the Commission be certain that it would be impossible for the claimant to successfully complete his course.
This change would mean that a proper assessment would have to be made and that someone could not just decide to disqualify a claimant because he was absent for two weeks.
I would like to officially table this amendment, which we can consider more fully when copies have been distributed.
I would also like to ask a question about process that could be useful for future proceedings.
Will we be dealing with the kind of amendment we intend to officially move once photocopies are available as we go along, or will they be left until the very end?
Of course, that means we will move through them at full speed, right? We will have to deal with each and every one of them. I'm told they cannot be left to die on the Order Paper.
.1635
Just so we fully understand the process, it might be a good idea to come back to the Clause we stood earlier once the amendment is available.
[English]
The Chairman: What I would do would be for you to explain your subamendment now.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's what I just did.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Because this is being left until the end, we are not sure that it will actually be considered. I want to be given some assurance that we will have an opportunity to look at it closely. Otherwise, we won't be able to pass this Clause.
[English]
The Chairman: No, that could be.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We will just have to vote on it; that's all.
[English]
The Chairman: We've got to vote on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: So, we should...
[English]
The Chairman: That's why I said to you to say whatever you have to say now.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: As we approach the end of the ten-hour period, we will have to set aside about an hour for the votes. Otherwise, these Clauses will not be passed. The government must agree with us on that at least.
[English]
The Chairman: So it's going to happen. We're going to keep going like this for the ten-hour period. After that, we're only going to vote on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: After the ten-hour period is up.
Mrs. Lalonde: That's what the motion says.
Mr. Crête: Sorry, I misread it.
[English]
The Chairman: Exactly, but at that point in time there's no debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, I understand.
[English]
The Chairman: You know, if it could happen before then, I'd be really happy.
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I want to say how much I appreciate all that my colleague, Mr. Crête, is doing here. As far as I'm concerned, this whole process amounts to abuse of authority.
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Dubé, is this a friendly amendment you're making to your colleagues?
An hon. member: A friendly amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am going to attempt to assist him in the process, but I would first like to make a brief comment. I think it's totally wrong for someone to be able to decide that some poor guy - or girl - who is making a real effort to get ahead will not successfully complete his or her course. That person may be less talented than others or have a learning disability which, despite his best efforts, prevents him from successfully completing the course. But under this provision, his benefits will be cut off.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, he'll be cut off. That's what is going -
Mr. Dubé: That is totally unacceptable. Not only are they denying him the course, they are taking away his means of subsistence. They may as well slit his throat. I would like to draw this to the attention of Mrs. Augustine and some of her other colleagues who have shown themselves to be people of great compassion. To me, this is abuse of authority.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman -
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Could you re-read Sub-Clause (a) for us so that we can debate it? I'm all in favour of deleting it. In light of all the problems associated with employment benefits - later we can again discuss the need for there to be a right of appeal with respect to courses one is referred to - and given what my colleagues have said, surely it isn't right to deprive someone of his benefits simply because the employment benefits program doesn't work. Yet that is what Sub-Clause (a) seems to say.
We could understand the government's wanting to do this if we were talking about extended benefits here. But if what is referred to here are benefits a claimant would be entitled to through what are known as ``passive measures'', I don't see how we can take away his right to support - and that is what unemployment insurance is first and foremost meant to be - simply because the ``active measures'' do not jibe with an individual's needs for one reason or another.
Mr. Grenon: If the measure proposed does not jibe with his needs, he won't be disqualified because he clearly has a valid reason. In that instance, it isn't even an issue.
.1640
Mrs. Lalonde: You were saying that there was no reference to a right of appeal in Sub-Clause (a).
[English]
Ms Smith: Let me try to clarify a few points. The limitation on the right of appeal applied to Clause 25, which we were dealing with earlier. There's a right of appeal for all of Clause 27.
The existing UI Act already provides for disqualification of a claimant if they have failed to live up to their obligations under a referral to some course or employment program. What has been added here is that in the circumstance when someone is disqualified and the disqualification is for between one to six weeks of benefits, there is also the authority now to terminate that person's participation in this course or employment program, which means they then are brought back under the obligation to be seeking and available for employment. They would return to become a regular claimant under the normal provisions under part I after they have served their one- to six-week disqualification.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Where exactly is that written?
Mr. Crête: He becomes a regular claimant again.
[English]
Ms Smith: If you read the entire act and put all the pieces together, that's the way this would work. The disqualification, as I say, already exists. All that has been added in this is a termination of the referral, which means someone is pushed back into becoming a regular part I claimant.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But it must be mentioned somewhere and I would appreciate knowing where to find it.
The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.
Mr. Dubé: I would like to make a brief comment, just to lighten things up. I want to go back to my story about the guy who is successful in life. Yvon Deschamps once said that it's better to be rich, healthy and smart than poor, sick and a slow learner. That's all I wanted to say.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, you had a comment.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, my point was to ask Miss Smith to clarify on Mr. Crête's points earlier. It's now been done.
Clause 27 allowed to stand
On Clause 28 - Duration of disqualification
The Chairman: Is there any discussion of Clause 28?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment in the small package.
The Chairman: Does everybody have a copy of it?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, could you tell me where the amendment is - is it in the small package or the big one?
[English]
Mr. Nault: I did.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Nault, I was looking for the amendment, because it's important we review the legislation closely, Clause-by-Clause.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, let's give people time to find their piles.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I said there is a new amendment and it's in the small package. They might have been talking to each other, but I did say that just now and I will say it every time we have one small pile, as we put it in French.
The Chairman: There you go. Who says Mr. Nault is not courteous?
Mr. Nault: I know a real good accountant in Montreal if folks are looking for one.
Mr. Chairman, are we ready?
I move that Clause 28 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 29 and substituting the following: ``tion arising under paragraph 27(1)(c) or (d) or subsection 27(1.1) shall be not more than 6.''
It's a consequential change to the Clause because of Clause 27. All it does is just clean up the fact that we've put Clause 27...
.1645
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Is this part of the wording we added in an amendment? There is no 27(1.1).
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, 27(1.1) is here.
Mr. Crête: Oh!
An hon. member: It's amendment G-9.
Mr. Crête: Was it part of an amendment?
Mrs. Lalonde: No, it's in the bill.
Mr. Crête: I have the bill in front of me, and I see Clause 27, but there is no (1.1).
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I have it. Look on the other side.
[English]
Mr. Nault: It relates to the previous motion.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Nault: It's consequential.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Does it relate to the previous amendment? If so, we should be looking for it in the other one.
An hon. member: In the big package.
Mrs. Lalonde: We should add the one that has been amended.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you want a subamendment on it?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No, no.
Mr. Crête: It's not an amendment. What Mrs. Lalonde is saying is that this is not a sub-amendment; it's simply a question of wording.
- ``But the number of weeks of disqualification arising under...''
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 28 as amended agreed to
On Clause 29 - Interpretation
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 29 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out lines 15 to 18 on page 30 and substituting the following:
``(a) ``employment'' refers to any employment of the claimant within their qualifying period or their benefit period;''
and (b) by striking out line 25 on page 30 and substituting the following:
``(b.1) voluntarily leaving an employment includes
(i) the refusal of employment offered as an alternative to an anticipated loss of employment, in which case the voluntary leaving occurs when the loss of employment occurs,
(ii) the refusal to resume an employment, in which case the voluntary leaving occurs when the employment is supposed to be resumed, and
(iii) the refusal to continue in an employment after the work, undertaking or business of the employer is transferred to another employer, in which case the voluntary leaving occurs when the work, undertaking or business is transferred; and''
The Chairman: Any discussion on the amendments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think we should take the time to do things in an orderly fashion, Mr. Chairman, because this is looking increasingly like the kind of confusion that surrounded the Conservatives' reform package, when the grounds for disqualification were such that an individual could no longer defend himself. That's why we have to take a little more time to look closely at Clause 29.
Clause 29 adds a number of new definitions that will apply to Clauses 30 to 33. So it's important to bear in mind the objectives of these Clauses as we proceed through our review.
In any case, Clause 30 is the one that says a claimant ``is disqualified from receiving any benefits if the claimant lost their employment because of their misconduct''.
Was the definition that appeared in the bill previously the same as the one in the current legislation?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Crête: I mean the one that appeared in the first version, before the amendment tabled today?
Mr. Leduc: There was a change that I would not necessarily describe as minor, but let's just say that a change did occur as a result of a ruling.
Mr. Crête: I'm afraid I need some clarification.
The definition that appeared in the bill referred to:
- ``...the claimant's last employment before their claim for benefits is made, other than an initial
claim for benefits, unless otherwise prescribed;''
- ``...any employment of the claimant within their qualifying period or their benefit period;''
Mr. Leduc: Well, the Court of Appeal handed down a ruling after the bill was tabled on March 7 that cast doubt on a specific regulation. It was therefore decided to entrench the regulation in the bill, because the arbitrator had determined that it was not absolutely airtight.
.1650
Mr. Crête: And what exactly did that ruling say?
[English]
Ms Smith: I should clarify that we're now talking about Clause 30, not Clause 29.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, we're talking about Clause 29. In a way, the definitions set out in Clause 29 form a new set of definitions. It's almost as though Clause 2 were being corrected to apply to Clauses 30 to 33. If we want to fully understand the effect of the definition of ``employment'', I think we have to examine it in relation to Clauses 30 to 33.
Clause 30 refers to people who lose their right to receive benefits through loss of their employment. Why does the definition have to refer to all previous employment?
Mr. Leduc: In order to restore the status quo, the department decided, following this ruling, to entrench the regulation in the actual bill. As a result, the definition of ``employment'' was broadened, and even modified.
When a person voluntarily quits his job, he or she is disqualified. The legislation stated that this person was to be disqualified until he could requalify - in other words, until he had acquired a sufficient number of weeks of work to meet the criteria. This particular definition appeared in the legislation, and especially in the regulations. We decided to include that in the regulations. Now for the initial period, it says that a person who suffers a loss of employment of any kind during the qualifying period - in other words during the 52 weeks - can be disqualified. That is indeed what the legislation and the regulations previously said.
Mr. Crête: I see. I have a follow-up question - just to be sure I understood your explanation. Let's say that during the 52-week qualifying period, a person who had a job loses it in his 33rd week of employment as a result of misconduct and finds another job. By losing his first job, does he lose his benefit entitlement from that point on, and does he then start counting again with his next job?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, his next job will count.
Mr. Crête: That could give rise to retroactive decisions, if you broaden it like that.
Mr. Leduc: Although we don't use the word ``retroactive'', it does have that effect. If, after losing his first job in the 33rd week, that individual works again for only six weeks, becomes subject to an involuntary layoff and applies for unemployment insurance benefits, he will be told that we will count back to week 33 and that he is disqualified because he lost that job.
Mr. Crête: So, if someone had worked 18 weeks and was fired after those 18 weeks for disciplinary reasons, but then found another job the following Monday, you would have the right to stop counting at the 18th week?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Mr. Crête: Because he had been fired during his 18th week?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, precisely. The system already worked that way before; we haven't made any changes here, we have simply maintained it.
Mrs. Lalonde: But if a ruling was made that cast doubt on the regulations, it's because that provision wasn't absolutely airtight. Otherwise, you would not be changing the wording.
Mr. Leduc: Well, the ruling did call our authority into question.
Mr. Crête: Maybe it was simply because the level of authority was not high enough and it had to actually be stated in the legislation to be valid.
Mr. Leduc: The decision was made to entrench it in the legislation.
Mrs. Lalonde: I guess that means that the regulations went further than the interpretation given by the arbitrator or the judge, and that they also went further than the actual meaning or scope of the statute.
Mr. Leduc: Well it may not have gone further, but I think it's fair to say that it didn't really cover the situation.
Mr. Crête: But by entrenching it in the legislation through this amendment you are giving it greater weight and ensuring that you will be able to enforce the Act using criteria that are absolutely airtight. I think it's important to state that they were not airtight before, and one may wonder just how relevant it is to include this here, especially since this is not a minor adjustment but an actual change in the legislation.
Mr. Leduc: It's an adjustment to ensure that the system that operated previously remains in effect.
Mrs. Lalonde: As interpreted by the regulations? Sorry! I meant to say: as administered!
.1655
The arbitrator clearly interpreted the legislation when he found in favour of the other party and determined that the regulations went further than the legislation. In other words, you want to be certain that the kind of rigorous enforcement of this provision which was rejected during arbitration would be entrenched in the legislation.
Since the hours-based system will take into account benefits for two different jobs, what exactly do you intend to do? Will you disqualify one job and not the other?
Mr. Leduc: This provision has nothing whatsoever to do with the calculation of hours. Here it's on more of a job-by-job basis.
Mr. Crête: But will someone who has one job working 10 hours a week and another working 15 hours a week who is fired from his ten-hour-a-week job lose his right to avail himself of the unemployment insurance system as a whole?
Mr. Leduc: If he qualifies, yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: I want to bring out a letter that Jean Chrétien wrote back in 1993. Mr. Chairman, I think this is extremely relevant. It has to do with Bill C-113. Mr. Chrétien was responding to all those people who had been encouraging Liberal members to demand that this odious legislation be withdrawn. He said, and I quote:
``Liberals are deeply concerned by these measures. By reducing benefits and imposing stiffer penalties on those who voluntarily quit their jobs, the government has shown it has little concern for victims of the current economic crisis. Rather than trying to get to the roots of the problem, it is attacking the unemployed.''
And it's signed, Jean Chrétien.
Mr. Crête: I would like to talk a little bit about the policy as opposed to the technical side of things.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. If in fact the members are going to get into this, then fine, we'll get into it, but the whole objective today was to get into Clause-by-Clause.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's exactly what we're doing.
[English]
Mr. Nault: They can probably save their political fire for when they get to the House, where it may do them some good, if they think it will. Quite frankly, for them to start reading into the record every single little thing that every single person in the world said, and to try and provoke us, if that's what they want to do, I'm quite willing to be provoked and get into this.
I get bored listening to them, as well as you do, go on and on. If there are questions they'd like to ask, then fine, but do they want to get into a political discussion and into a debate?
Remember, Mr. Chairman, that's the side that just finished saying less than an hour ago that I was being provocative. If that wasn't provocative, I don't know what is. If the intent of that was to get us going, that's all right, they can get me going and I'll have some fun here in a bit.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault, you made an excellent point.
Mrs. Lalonde, if you'd kindly refrain from using this -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: It's quite the reverse. It's Jean Chrétien who is -
[English]
The Chairman: I know, but I tend to agree.
Mr. Nault: When Mr. Bouchard makes his major cuts, then I'll have a chat with Mrs. Lalonde. She may have trouble hanging out with Mr. Bouchard after that.
The Chairman: Let's return to what we're doing here. Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'd like to go back to what I was saying earlier.
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You will surely have noticed that I have not been given any answer whatsoever. I am back on the Clause we were discussing earlier and I am trying to proceed with Clause-by-Clause consideration. An amendment has just been tabled that is quite important. What I would like is for Liberal government members to show some sensitivity to what we have just been told and to think carefully about this amendment before we vote on the Clause.
With the number of part-time jobs in our society, this change will mean that from now on, anyone who has two part-time jobs and loses his entitlement as a result of being fired from one of the two jobs will become ineligible for UI. Everybody isn't lucky enough to be a CEO.
There are lots of pizza delivery men who work 14 hours a week and who could get another job - for instance as a part-time orderly working 7 or 14 hours a week. What this means is that a pizza delivery man whose boss is unhappy with him and who ends up being fired will have to prove he wasn't fired for just cause, and so on.
The burden of proof will rest with the individual. Rather than it being the other way around, this individual will be considered guilty until proven innocent. I want to make the point to the government that this is not a partisan issue. It's a massive tightening of the legislation in terms of workers' freedom. In ancient Rome, they called it slavery.
.1700
You have two employers and you work 14 hours for each one. One of them fires you with good cause... Let me use a simpler example.
One of the two jobs requires a driver's licence, and the person involved loses his driver's licence because he had a drink. So, that person automatically loses his job. When that happens, he will automatically lose his entitlement, even for the other job. Is that what this provision means?
I just want you to consider this carefully, because I think it's important to ensure that it is airtight. This has nothing to do with the opposition, the government or politicking.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Having too many drinks and getting caught for impaired and losing your licence, that's called breaking the law. If you condone that and you think that's okay and that we should condone it, well where I come from you shouldn't drink and drive because a lot of people get killed doing that. I'm not condoning that. You need more than one drink, I can tell you that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, what I am saying is that one of the jobs requires this individual to hold a driver's licence. That person loses his job because he lost his driver's licence. However, the other job does not require him to have a driver's licence. This individual did not kill anyone. You don't have to kill someone to lose your driver's licence.
[English]
Mr. Nault: That's what you just said, it's okay to drink and drive.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No.
Mr. Dubé: Perhaps that it isn't a good example.
Mr. Crête: It's an excellent one.
I never said that I wanted people to drink and drive. I was simply trying to make the point tothe government that by passing this amendment, we will be creating a whole new body of case law dealing with people who hold down two jobs.
It's a group that is constantly expanding, and there will be more and more of such cases. That was the point I was trying to make.
[English]
The Chairman: I think Mr. McFee could answer this question.
Mr. McFee: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a short intervention only for the purpose of explanation and no other purpose.
First of all, the penalty in this section is not new, it's been there before.
Secondly, it may not be clear but I want to make sure it's clear that when a person loses one job for having voluntarily quit the job or having been fired from the job, the effect of that on the second job only kicks in if in the second job, following when they lost their job without just cause or having been fired, the person is unable to accumulate enough work to requalify. If the person is able to accumulate enough work to requalify from another job, then they can get UI and the first job will be gone by then. That's the second point I wanted to make.
The third point I wanted to make was that in the previous legislation the advice was that the power to enact a regulation to incorporate this was there and the regulation was written in that context. In the meantime, there was a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal that in essence in layman's terms said that regulation couldn't be done in the context it had been done in. That's the reason this thing has been transplanted into this section.
Obviously I'm not going to debate this; that's simply to explain the genesis of this section and nothing more than that. It's not new and it was put in because of the difficulty with the regulation.
I bored them.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. Things are not going smoothly.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Augustine): Mr. Easter is next.
Mr. Easter: I wanted a point of clarification on Mr. Crête's point and I think Mr. McFee has covered most of it. But what happens in instances where, using his example, there may be just cause for having lost your job? Is there any kind of a process or not?
Mr. McFee: I attempted but failed perhaps to make the point well.
As has already been pointed out, although this section is talking about the word ``voluntarily'' and talking about the word ``employment'', the essence of the issue is still and always has been that the person must have lost the job without just cause, not with just cause. If a person leaves their job voluntarily but they have just cause, there is no problem. If a person is dismissed from their job but not for misconduct, if they're simply dismissed, let go, laid off, whatever, there is no problem. So in the sense of voluntarily quitting, you need to have a situation where the person chooses to leave the job and they do that without just cause.
.1705
As you're aware, there are several definitions of just cause and examples in the legislation. In the case of being dismissed from a job, in order for the penalty to apply the person must have been dismissed for misconduct.
I believe the example was given of a person who requires a driver's licence to do their job and who infringes the drinking and driving laws and loses their job for that reason. Where the licence was required for the job, the state of the jurisprudence is that person is considered to have lost their job because of misconduct.
Mr. Easter: Thank you.
The Chairman: Okay. I think we could move on.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I would ask the Liberal members to have a look at this before 10 o'clock tonight.I find this simply unbelievable. The regulation was more severe than the legislation, so now it's being entrenched in the legislation, meaning that the latter is now more severe.
That's not all I wanted to say. I have no intention of repeating what Mr. Chrétien said in his letter, but I do think there is a need to appeal to those who are prepared to listen and who still know the meaning of human kindness. It's important that Liberal members realize, before they actually pass this, that they will be making the legislation more harsh, far harsher than what the Prime Minister seemed to feel was appropriate some time ago.
[English]
The Chairman: We have a subamendment from Mr. Crête.
Mr. Easter: On Mr. Dubé's point, I don't believe he is correct. As I understand it, this is not more severe. It's a matter of clarification in terms of what the intent of the act really was in the beginning.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Can I move my sub-amendment?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I move that we delete from the amendment the new paragraph (a), in other words the definition of ``employment''. Let me just quickly explain the purpose of this sub-amendment. The definition of ``employment'' would thus only apply to ``the claimant's' last employment before their claim for benefits is made''.
As a result, the employment centre could not go back to the second last or third last job or previous jobs of any kind to try and retroactively penalize someone who might have lost his job - even for disciplinary reasons - found another one the following morning or two days later, and worked at that job for several weeks.
This individual could have lost it because it was the first time he ever held a job. Supposing this got him thinking and one week later, he goes out and finds another job, works at that job for 15 or 20 weeks, and then because of disciplinary measures relating to his first job, he is suddenly no longer considered eligible.
So, the goal of my sub-amendment is to ensure that Clauses 30 to 33 can only apply to the claimant's last employment.
I hereby table that sub-amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Because we have now a subamendment, I guess we will stand the Clause. Does everybody agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
On Clause 30 - Disqualification
The Chairman: Okay. Now we'll move to Clause 30. Is there any discussion on Clause 30? Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to Clause 30.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Have we finished Clause 29?
[English]
The Chairman: We stood the Clause.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Okay. Because I wanted to ask a question about sub-paragraph 29(c). It will be very brief.
[English]
The Chairman: Please be very brief.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I want to discuss the list of circumstances under which a claimant might consider to be justified in voluntarily leaving an employment; I understand the department has a document that explains those circumstances in far greater detail. Would it not have been relevant to spell those out in the legislation so that all of the reasons or circumstances could be considered? Do you understand my question?
Mr. McFee: I understand it perfectly.
Mr. Crête: I know there is a departmental document that explains this in detail. There are about 42 altogether and I think it would have been a good idea to include them in the bill.
I would be interested in hearing your views on the subject.
.1710
Mr. McFee: In terms of the reasons or circumstances set out in the bill you are currently considering, there is a list of 14. The first 13 represent a breakdown - without necessarily giving the specifics of all cases - of the 42 or 43 cases that are now part of the case law. However, that does not broaden the scope of the provision.
I can only assume that the reason for including only 14 of the 42 or 43 cases here was to save space.
Mr. Crête: In sub-paragraph 29(c) (xiv), it says:
``(xiv) any other reasonable circumstances that are prescribed.''
Coming back to the 42 circumstances, is there a Clause stipulating that other circumstances could also be considered, or is this supposed to be an exhaustive list?
Mr. McFee: No regulations have yet been drafted on that.
Mr. Crête: So, the administrative document that we saw is not part of a regulation; it's simply a working paper prepared by the department to deal with the different cases that arise.
Mr. McFee: The departmental manual covers the first 13 reasons. In a way, they represent a summary of the some 42 different reasons or circumstances that can exist. That includes the power to set regulations. In other words, we could set a regulation to prevent people from being penalized in cases not already provided for here.
Up until now, however, there have been no such cases as far as I know. As a result, no regulation has ever been drafted to deal with them.
Mr. Crête: In other words, the first 13 are explicitly mentioned in the list of 42 reasons? Are there any new ones to be added that are not included in the administrative document?
Mr. McFee: Let's go back to the example I cited earlier in relation to sub-paragraph (ix) which deals with significant changes in work duties. I would say that out of the 42, there may be three or four that cover that and set out the specific circumstances.
Let's take the case of someone who works a certain number of hours per week for a salary and has specific duties and tasks to perform; if at some point his boss were to decide to change those duties, that would be a specific example where this provision would kick in.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, at this stage, I would ask that the regulations be tabled. In any case, it's only natural that we be given the regulations.
Mr. Leduc: Are you talking about the regulation referred to by the court?
Mrs. Lalonde: No, the regulations -
Mr. Leduc: I will obviously give you an opportunity to respond, but I just wanted to say that we don't have any regulations.
Mrs. Lalonde: I was talking about the entire set of regulations.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, is the member asking for the old regulations under the old bill that relate to this issue or is she asking for the brand-new regulations after?
The Chairman: The brand-new ones.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, it's not unusual, as she knows, that the regulations would be prepared and submitted to the House of Commons before the bill passes. So she will not be seeing the regulations.
The Chairman: Now, can we go back to Clause 30?
Mr. Nault: Exactly, that's what were doing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Excuse me. What I want to say is that it would make a difference if there were three. You identified three cases that in any other circumstances would be reasonable. I think it makes a big difference if they're included in the legislation or not - not in terms of countering the arbitrary application of this principle, but in terms of giving someone the ability to make a complaint and go before the board.
.1715
When it's clearly stated in the legislation or when it's a case that is similar to another reason or circumstance that's already listed, I think it makes a difference. I think it would be a good idea to add those three or four -
Mr. McFee: In the meantime, I should say that the manual that clarifies these 43 reasons is available at local offices.
Mrs. Lalonde: We will get a hold of it.
Mr. Crête: Actually, that's exactly where we got it.
[English]
The Chairman: Now we're going back to you, Mr. Nault, on the amendment on Clause 30.
Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This, of course, continues on with Clause 29. Obviously, Clause 29 is an interpretation Clause. Then Clause 30, of course, is sort of the implementation Clause itself, whereby you get on with the business of this issue.
I move that Clause 30 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out lines 22 to 32 on page 31 and substituting the following:
- ``ceiving any benefits if the claimant lost any employment because of their misconduct or
voluntarily left any employment without just cause, unless
(b) the claimant is disentitled under sections 31 to 33 in relation to the employment.''
(b) by striking out lines 5 to 15 on page 32 and substituting the following, with the marginal note ``Restriction on qualifying for benefits'':
``(6) If a claimant who has lost or left an employment as described in subsection (1) makes an initial claim for benefits, the following hours may not be used to qualify under section 7 to receive benefits:
(a) hours of insurable employment from that or any other employment before the employment was lost or left; and
(b) hours of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant subsequently loses or leaves, as described in subsection (1).''
(c) by striking out lines 17 and 18 on page 32 and substituting the following:
- ``any employment that a claimant''
``(8) For greater certainly, but subject to paragraph (1)(a), a claimant may be disqualified under subsection (1) even if the claimant's last employment before their claim for benefits was not lost or left as described in that subsection and regardless of whether their claim is an initial claim for benefits.''
The Chairman: Any discussion? Mr. Nault, Madame Lalonde has asked for an explanation of the amendment.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, I must have been reading the old Clause before it was cleaned up. I'll read it over again:
``(a) the claimant has, since losing or leaving the employment, been employed in insurable employment for the number of hours required by section 7 or 7.1 to qualify to receive benefits, or''
That's the one change. It's to clarify that 7.1 now belongs.
And under 6:
``(6) If a claimant who has lost or left an employment as described in subsection (1) makes an initial claim for benefits, the following hours may not be used to qualify under section 7 or section 7.1 to receive benefits:''
I apologize for that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason for change has obviously been already articulated by the officials, which is basically that some recent court decisions have made it necessary to clarify the definition of employment and the wording of the disqualification provision in the act. That's what this does.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Any discussion?
Madam Lalonde.
.1720
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: The one thing we can say is that we really find all of this a bit much.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Can I make some comments about the Clause as amended?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Clause 30 is what you're talking to.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, that's the one. I would like to ask a question about the amended Clause.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Which section is she speaking to?
The Chairman: Which section are you speaking to?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Nault, on the second page, is the part where it says ``interpretation'' new?
Mr. Grenon: Yes, Mrs. Lalonde, that is new.
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to know what it means. I know the amendment has already been passed, but I would like to get an explanation of what the amended Clause actually means.
Mr. Grenon: The idea was really to clarify it. There was an anglicism here. What it says is that notwithstanding the reason an individual lost his last job, we can consider previous employment for the purposes of disqualification. It is really there for greater certainty.
[English]
The Chairman: Seeing no questions... Oh, you have one?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: If that is really what this means, I must say I am appalled.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 30 carry?
Clause 30 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 31 - Disentitlement - suspension for misconduct
The Chairman: Now we go to Clause 31. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find that in the small package, if I'm not mistaken.
An hon. member: No, the big package.
Mr. Nault: I'm excited to hear that they've got it in the big package. We'll see if their package is bigger than ours at report stage, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Clause 31 of Bill C-12 be amended (a) by striking out line 29 on page 32 and substituting the following:
- ``the employment; or''
- ``surable employment required by section 7 or 7.1''
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, that's a consequential amendment because of changes to Clause 7.
The Chairman: Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Why was ``from their employment'' added? Wasn't it clear enough to simply say ``a claimant who is suspended''?
[English]
Mr. Nault: We added Clause 7.1, Mr. Chairman. The provision relates to the particular employment from which the claimant was suspended. This is one of three ways by which the disentitlement of the person would be ended.
The Chairman: Does that satisfy you, Madame Lalonde?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Did he provide an explanation?
Mrs. Lalonde: Does the term ``employment'' have a different meaning? Does it refer to one job only? For example, in paragraph (c), it says:
``(c) the claimant, after the beginning of the period of suspension, accumulates with another employer the number of hours''
Mr. Leduc: Yes, because (c) was intended to provide clarification - that is to ensure that we specified that in cases where an employee had been suspended, that he had lost that specific employment - in other words, the employment from which he was suspended. We also wanted to make reference to claimants who voluntarily leave their employment.
.1725
Mr. Crête: If I understand correctly, then, we are adding ``from their employment'' as a result of the new definition in Clause 29. According to the initial interpretation you gave me, the wording was to be ``a claimant who is suspended''. In other words, this would have referred to any employment held before making a benefit claim, other than the initial claim. Am I right?
That's the reason why it was decided to make this addition, because the words ``a claimant who is suspended'' did not necessarily refer back to the definition of employment. Someone, somewhere, could have argued that this did not necessarily refer back to the definition of ``employment'' set out in the legislation, but instead to some other definition of ``employment''.
Mr. Leduc: We wanted to specifically mention ``from their employment'' when referring to a claimant who had been suspended.
Mrs. Lalonde: For the sake of consistency, should you not delete paragraph (c)?
Mr. Leduc: That has to do with someone who is suspended from his employment. We are not disqualifying him, but providing for his disentitlement. In other words, we are saying that that person will not be entitled to receive UI unless one of the following three conditions are met: the person has lost an appeal, the period of suspension has expired, or the claimant has voluntarily left employment from which he had been suspended or he has found other employment elsewhere and requalified since the suspension. It could involve a case where there is a layoff and that individual would therefore be entitled to UI. So, we still need Sub-Clause (c). This is an exception that benefits the claimant.
Mr. Crête: In other words, Mr. Chairman, by saying ``a claimant who is suspended from their employment because of their misconduct is not entitled to receive benefits until the period of suspension expires'', for example, we are basically saying that this could relate to any previous employment.
For example, someone who quits a job in March from which he has been suspended for quite a long time - sometimes the term of the suspension can be six months or a year - could find a new job during that period and work a sufficient number of weeks to be eligible for UI. By specifically stating that this Clause refers to ``a claimant who is suspended from their employment'', we are ensuring that he will be ineligible for the entire period of his suspension. Maybe that's a twisted way of seeing it, but I prefer -
Mr. Leduc: Maybe I'm the one -
Mr. Crête: No, I may be a little twisted, because I'm a former director of personnel. That can be dangerous at times.
Mr. Leduc: In the example you've cited, when a person becomes unemployed after losing a second job, we will refer back to the first job from which he was suspended and, pursuant to Clause 30, say that this individual lost his job because of misconduct. But Clause 30 does include one exception.
Mrs. Lalonde: Basically this means that one way of putting an end to the disentitlement would be to lose your job. Right? But it's where it talks about accumulating the number of hours required that I get confused.
Mr. Leduc: Well since being suspended, he may have accumulated -
Mrs. Lalonde: In my opinion, it is not correct French to say ``Jusqu'à ce qu'il ait cumulé''. Anyway, you can have a look at that.
Mr. McFee: This simply says that he has worked long enough at another job to qualify.
Mrs. Lalonde: I'm talking about the French version. Do you agree with me?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Madam Lalonde has a degree in languages. I'm certainly going to accept the argument of our expertise and the department. She has used the sense that she has a better understanding of the French language than the experts we have.
.1730
Of course, I have an expert working in my office in the English language who has a degree. My understanding is Mrs. Lalonde doesn't have a degree in the French language section. She continues to say if you read the French text it's not right, and then looks at us and says you agree with us.
I don't agree, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think she's an expert in the French language. She speaks French very well. I'm not arguing about that. But to suggest the experts and the drafters are always wrong in the drafting, I don't think that's correct. We shouldn't accept it because it challenges quite frankly the expertise in the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, although these people may have excellent linguistic qualifications, I just want them to know that I think this bill could have been drafted differently. That is not meant to be offensive.
With respect to my own qualifications or expertise in the French language, I do not believeMr. Nault is really in any position to determine whether I am an expert or not. As I was saying the other day, I began my professional life a long time back as a French teacher and I have never ceased to improve my knowledge of French since. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm glad we're exchanging biographies. Can we now deal with the amendment?
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 31 as amended agreed to on division
On Clause 32 - Disentitlement - period of leave without just cause
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm still here.
Mr. Chairman, the intent of this amendment is to make sure the English version corresponds with that excellent language, the French language. I say that in all sincerity because of course my mother and father are fluently bilingual and all that stuff.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 32 of the English version of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 4 on page 33 and substituting the following: ``(b) losses or voluntarily leaves that em-''.
The Chairman: That's ``loses or voluntarily leaves the em''. You said losses.
Mr. Nault: Did I? ``Loses or voluntarily leaves the em-''. I'm sorry about that.
The Chairman: That's not a problem, that's self-explanatory.
Mr. Nault: I'm 40, I'm getting tired - according to the French press anyway.
The Chairman: Can you give us a brief description as to reasoning, Mr. Nault?
Mr. Nault: As I explained before, it's just to bring it in line with the preferred French version.
The Chairman: That's pretty clear.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Are there any further amendments, Mr. Nault?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: It's still on division.
[English]
The Chairman: On division, yes. Everything's on division. We established that earlier. I'm not even going to waste my breath any more. It's always going to be on division.
Mr. Crête: We just wanted to confirm.
The Chairman: Better safe than sorry. You're right.
Mr. Nault: You have to say it, Mr. Chairman, supposedly, for the record. No, you don't have to?
The Chairman: On division, I can say it. I can keep repeating it.
Mr. Nault: I have another amendment, Mr. Chairman, to Clause 32, page 33.
I move that Clause 32 of Bill C-12 be amended by striking out line 9 on page 33 and substituting the following: ``ment required by section 7 or 7.1 to qualify to''. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, it's because of the changes to Clause 7.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 32 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 33 to 36 inclusive agreed to on division
.1735
On Clause 37 - Prison inmates and persons outside Canada
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on Clause 37?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just a moment, please. I would like to make a comment. In the first part of Clause 37, it says:
``37. Except as may otherwise be prescribed, a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits for any period during which the claimant:
(a) is an inmate of a prison or a similar institution;''
Does that mean that someone who's been given a very short sentence - say, four or five days - could still receive benefits? Is there a minimal period during which a claimant can maintain his benefit entitlement?
What I'm basically asking is what specific cases are set out in the regulations.
Mr. Leduc: As far as prison sentences are concerned, I don't believe there is anything in the regulations.
Mr. McFee: No, there isn't. The only relevant regulation applies to people outside of Canada.
Mr. Crête: So, the first part of Clause 37 is there in case there is a regulation some day - except as may otherwise be prescribed.
Mr. McFee: This is what Clause 37 means: Unless there is a regulation in place that prescribes something else, a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits while he is in prison.
Mr. Crête: Yes, but you say there is no such regulation.
Mr. McFee: There is no regulation setting out exceptions to the rule.
Mrs. Lalonde: If someone had become eligible before serving a prison sentence, could he receive benefits after leaving prison?
That is what this Clause really means. In other words, it is only while he is in prison that he can't receive benefits; but after he gets out of prison, he could receive them. Right?
Mr. McFee: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: In other words, it's better to go to prison than to get fired.
Mr. McFee: It depends on how much time you spend in prison.
Mrs. Lalonde: No, but that's the basic idea here.
Mr. Crête: I have another question.
Mr. Dubé: It's better to go to prison.
Mrs. Lalonde: Is that what this means, literally? It's better to go to prison than to be fired?
Mr. Crête: In some cases, yes.
Mr. Dubé: Better than voluntarily quitting your job.
Mr. Crête: Sub-Clause 37(a) reads as follows:
``(a) is an inmate of a prison or a similar institution;''
Is a transition house considered to be a similar institution? What institutions are considered to be similar to prisons? Closed custody facilities, open custody facilities? I would appreciate getting some clarification on this.
Mr. Leduc: Here we have developed a very broad policy because there is a great deal of case law in this area and the Canadian prison system includes several types of institutions. I could list them all, but basically we're talking about maximum security or minimum security institutions. There is substantial case law in this area. We also have work farms, mental institutions and prisons.
Mr. Crête: Are those institutions considered to be similar to prisons? Mrs. Lalonde, I must admit I'm having trouble with this one.
Mrs. Lalonde: I still haven't gotten over the part about prison.
Mr. Crête: Well, I'm having trouble with the prison or similar institutions part.
Work farms are an interesting example. Is someone considered to be in prison when they're on a work farm?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, that's a similar institution.
Mr. Crête: This is an important Clause, because under the new provisions of C-41 - which deals with sentences that have nothing to do with unemployment insurance - all across Canada, there will be fewer and fewer people in our prisons in future, and more and more who are subject to special arrangements such as this.
Is there any provision for you to define the term ``similar institution'' in the regulations?
Mr. Leduc: Given the wording of Clause 37, we could eventually pass regulations to make provision for different kinds of arrangements.
Mr. Crête: It is clear there will be a much higher number of people subject to such arrangements in the years to come.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. Shall Clause 37 carry?
.1740
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like an explanation.
Why is it that someone who actually serves time in prison receives less punishment than someone who is fired? That is the effect of this provision. Someone who is fired from his job loses his entitlement.
If a person serving a prison term was eligible for benefits before going to prison, when he gets out of the institution, will he still be eligible?
I am not asking that you toughen up the provision for people serving prison terms, but I do find this rather odd.
[English]
Mr. Easter: You could in fact be fired for going to jail. As an employer, if I lost one of my employees because he went to jail and I fired him, then that would be it. That would be misconduct, would it not?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There are collective agreements -
Mrs. Lalonde: But that's not what I'm talking about.
Mr. Crête: Some collective agreements provide that an employee sent to prison is entitled to leave without pay during his prison term.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. I think everybody's made their points.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I can't let that stand. Unless Mr. Crête has a collective agreement he'd like to show me... I've spent ten years of my life in the union movement negotiating collective agreements. I've never yet seen one where if you go to jail for a serious offence and you're gone for a significant amount of time, they hold the job for that person.
It must be unique to Quebec. I didn't do any negotiating in Quebec, I have to admit. I went to arbitration with many employees who went to jail, who couldn't keep their turn on the railway, for example. I'd like to see that, because I don't think that's actually correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'll send you a copy of the collective agreement.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Good, show me one. It's an interesting society.
Clause 37 agreed to on division
On Clause 38 - Penalty for claimants, etc.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I move that Clause 38 be amended (a) by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 35 and substituting the following:
- ``ings for a period determined under the regulations for which the claimant claimed benefits;''
- ``(i) three times the amount of the deduction from the claimant's benefits under''
- ``deduction had not been made under sub-''
- ``Determinations under section 15 or subsection 145(2) or (3)
That is put forward as an amendment because it is consequential to that at Sub-Clause 19(3). It also makes clear that the repayment of benefits relating to weeks as a result of fraud shall nevertheless be counted for the intensity rule and clawback provisions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We just want to understand the rationale. Could someone kindly explain?
[English]
The Chairman: I thought you did explain it.
Mr. Easter: I said it's consequential to changes at Sub-Clause 19(3) and it makes clear the repayment of benefits relating to weeks as a result of fraud shall nonetheless be counted for the intensity rule and clawback provisions.
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No, no. Do you not find it strange that the bill should say something like this :
- `` - earnings for a period determined under the regulations for which the claimant claimed
benefits - ''
- You don't want to specify what that period is in the legislation. Instead, you say it will be
determined under the regulations. But what period are we talking about here?