Human Resources Committee on April 21st, 2010

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

As I said, the example we have given concerns 425 workers. So, in this case, we are talking about approximately 180 workers who would have received Employment Insurance benefits for 50 weeks. I will let you figure out how much that amounts to. I believe the Committee can do the number crunching. It is not an enormous amount. That is why we are proposing measures to enhance the Employment Insurance system, or abolish the waiting period. Once again, the government has built up huge surpluses thanks to employer and employee contributions—some $60 billion.

Do the arithmetic; I am sure you will have several billion dollars left over to offset the deficit on the backs of workers, as is the case now. These are not very costly measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Madame Beaudin, please.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, thank you very much for being here today to discuss this bill.

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that, when there is a work stoppage caused by a labour dispute, workers who find themselves with no income benefit from an exception, such as the ones that exist for inmates and individuals who can no longer work or have no income because of illness. You would like to see another exception under the Act for these workers with no income.

Mr. Lévesque, you made an interesting comment earlier when you were talking about what happened in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, and I would like to come back to that. You said it is a single-industry town and people are anxious to hang on to their jobs because opportunities to work in other companies are extremely rare.

At the same time, you talked about the economic situation. You are right that this could prompt an employer, after a three-year lockout, for example, to lay off employees, which is what happened in your area.

I would like to know whether you think this bill would give some power back to employees, or at the very least, reassure them, and perhaps limit a tendency to go to extremes by engaging in mass layoffs when a strike or lockout lasts a certain number of years.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I do not think the bill per se gives more power to other workers or employers. It is simply intended to do justice to workers who make contributions for 30 years and, in some cases 40 years, and who need protection when a company shuts down.

If a company that is in financial difficulty decides one day to force its workers to strike or locks them out in order to protect itself and try to turn things around, well, workers have no control over that. The bill is simply intended to do justice to those workers.

For example, someone who is in prison—this is strange—is entitled to 104 weeks of benefits. That is well established. But it is different for a worker who is on strike or has been locked out.

We have just been through a lockout that lasted more than three years, that workers had absolutely no control over. There were small businesses in the area. Some people, while their colleagues were making sure that no other workers would take their place, went out into the surrounding communities to collect “Employment Insurance stamps”—that is the expression they use. They set up a rotation.

On the other hand, some 180 workers were unable to find jobs in the surrounding area, the closest town being 170 kilometers away. So, the company shut down and the workers do not have access to EI. How much do you think their houses are worth now that the company has shut down and there is no other business in the region?

These people paid $150,000 or $200,000 for their homes in an isolated area. They have ended up with houses that are only worth $30,000 or $40,000, in some cases, even though the original value was $150,000. So, they lost everything and yet they had no control over any of it.

And this sort of thing does not only happen in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. It can happen anywhere. In a large urban centre like Montreal or Toronto, 425 workers is a drop in the bucket. The fact is that some of those workers might be able to again qualify for Employment Insurance, depending on their skills, by working in small businesses in the surrounding area; but everyone is not able to do that.

Why penalize a worker when the company he worked for did not want to lay people off, or was not honest enough to make those layoffs at the time it was shutting down? That would not prevent the company from negotiating a return to work, if the closure turned out not to be final. If it closed temporarily, workers could still exercise the rights they acquired over all those years. However, that did not happen.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

That leads me to my next question. If this bill passes, would it be possible to avoid a situation like the one in Lebel-sur-Quévillon—in other words, where an employer waits three years before starting to lay people off, showing no consideration for the workers?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Well, the employer would have nothing to gain from it.

Is there any real advantage to be gained? No, there is not. It may simply be revenge for labour disputes that occurred over the years. That company had been operating for 40 years and it was a tightly-knit unionized community. I am not saying that this is what happened, but it probably is.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

To give a partial answer to that question, I would say that in some situations, there could be abuses. For example, where workers are on strike for two years—which is longer than the current qualifying period—the employer could take advantage of the situation. Indeed, knowing that the workers will have no income once the dispute is ended, the employer could use that in the negotiations. I believe this measure would prevent that sort of thing from happening.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I would like to add one quick comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Very quickly. Thank you.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I was a little surprised at the decision to require the royal recommendation for this bill because, in actual fact, it will cost absolutely nothing. Indeed, under normal circumstances, if these workers had been treated fairly, they would have received compensation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I have one very quick question. If I heard you correctly, you were saying something about prisoners qualifying for EI. Actually, we all heard it translated that way. Did we hear you correctly?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes, for inmates, the qualifying period is 104 weeks.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It is an exception.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay, thank you very much.

I understand, Mr. André, you're going to be leaving us at this point and Mr. Lévesque will be staying.

We have another group of witnesses coming. Are they going to be joining you?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I will sit over here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, then we'll invite the other witnesses to come to the table.

We have a bit of committee business that I'd like to take care of at this point.

I think all of you have before you the operational budget request motion. I need someone to move this motion so we can pay the costs of bringing the witnesses.

Mr. Casson has so moved.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We're all done. Thank you very much.

We're ready to begin with our witnesses. We want to welcome Mario Pothier, Pierre Céré, and Michel Ducharme. We thank you so much for being here. Welcome to our committee.

We will have one of you make a ten-minute presentation, and then we can begin with questions.

Monsieur Ducharme, would you like to begin, please?

[Michel Ducharme, Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, we will be sharing the presentation, which will be brief.

First of all, we would like to express our thanks on behalf of our two organizations, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, thank you for inviting us to appear to discuss Bill C-395.

We would like to say, at the outset, that we are in favour of this bill—at least as regards its intention—which is to make a labour dispute grounds for extending the qualifying period. I also want to take this opportunity to mention that the text of the proposed bill contains certain errors. Indeed, before establishing the reasons for the extension, it is necessary to understand the definition of “qualifying period”. That definition can be found in subsection 8(1) of the Act. The qualifying period cannot exceed the 52 weeks immediately before the beginning of the benefit period. However, the bill does not amend that definition of qualifying period.

Now let us look at the extension of the qualifying period. The Act provides for the extension of the qualifying period by an equivalent number of weeks, during the qualifying period, where the worker's situation corresponds to one of those described in subsection 8(2). The purpose of Bill C-395 is to add “work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute” as grounds for extending the qualifying period. We are very much in favour of that first proposal in the bill. In our opinion, it is part and parcel of the modernization of the Employment Insurance program. Indeed, we do not understand why it has not yet been included under the reasons for granting an exception.

Pierre.

[Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

Madam Chair, I am going to take over now, as this is a brief presented jointly by the FTQ and the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses.

I would like to draw your attention to the second paragraph of Bill C-395. In our opinion, this second provision, which is intended to provide for an extension greater than the current maximum of 104 weeks, cannot apply unless “qualifying period” is redefined. Under this bill, the definition remains the same—namely the 52-week period immediately before the beginning of the benefit period.

I would like to refer you to page 3 of our brief—there you have the French and English versions. These are excerpts from the relevant sections of the Employment Insurance Act—subsection 8(1), which defines the qualifying period, and subsections 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), and so on, which define the exceptions which could give rise to a potential extension of the qualifying period. You will see that, if you compare that wording with the one found in the bill, the latter only refers to subsection 8(2), relating to the reasons for granting an extension of the qualifying period, without actually amending the definition of “qualifying period”, which remains at 52 weeks.

Madam Chair, we clearly understand the intent of this bill: to bring the entire labour dispute period into the qualifying period and extend it by 52 additional weeks, to include the year prior to the labour dispute, so as to qualify workers laid off at the end of the labour dispute. I must admit that, during the first hour of your hearings, I sometimes could not believe my ears. It was said that the purpose of the bill was to allow workers to receive Employment Insurance benefits for the duration of the labour dispute. But that is not at all what this bill is about. And, if people believe that labour dispute period would entitle workers to hours of work that would allow them to qualify, once again, they are mistaken. It is important to understand what is meant by the qualifying period and potentially extending that qualifying period.

Not only do we understand the bill, but we support its intent, which is to extend the qualifying period, in some cases, beyond the 104 weeks. Furthermore, it is our view that an extension of the qualifying period beyond the current maximum of 104 weeks should also be permitted for other reasons. Here we are thinking of workers deemed to be—and I am quoting from subparagraph 8(2)(a)—“incapable of work because of a prescribed illness, injury…”.

The fact is that people who are injured at work will be covered by the provincial health and safety regime. Other people may become seriously ill and will sometimes be covered by a wage insurance plan. However, if someone spends the last two years under a WCB or wage insurance plan, upon return to work, that person will not be able to receive Employment Insurance if there have been job losses, because the qualifying period is 52 weeks and can only be extended by another 52 weeks. Again, I would refer you to subsection 8(2) on page 3. In other words, in spite of the reasons stated for a possible extension of the qualifying period—which include illness, injury, inmate status, receipt of severance pay, and so on—the maximum is 104 weeks. It would be possible, however, in the spirit of this bill—and understanding the intention behind this—to provide for exceptional situations where the 104 weeks could be somewhat exceeded.

I would also like to draw your attention to the Quebec Act respecting Parental Insurance. This is not the first time that I have been here, and it is not the first time either, ladies and gentlemen, that I have talked about the Quebec Act respecting Parental Insurance. This Act is an extension of the Employment Insurance Act. Starting in 1998—and this came into force on January 1, 2006— Quebec repatriated part of the Employment Insurance Act—the part of the Act that deals with maternity and parental benefits. When that legislation was introduced in 1998, and finally passed in 2006, it was based on the Employment Insurance Act.

However, we looked at it and tried to modernize it. We tried to modernize it with respect to the eligibility criteria, the calculation of the benefit rate and the benefit period claimants are entitled to. Again, I would refer you to our brief. I hope you have it. On page 5, you have excerpts from the Act respecting Parental Insurance that relates to the qualifying period and the extension of that period. I repeat: the Act respecting Parental Insurance that has been implemented in Quebec is an extension of the Employment Insurance Act. In Quebec and at the federal level, it is considered to provide the equivalent of Employment Insurance benefits.

When I say that we have modernized that part of the Act, what that means is that the Quebec government met with a wide variety of civil society representatives. People like myself, people from union organizations, employer associations and government institutions all contributed to the Act respecting Parental Insurance. The purpose of this long preamble is to ask you to look at page 5 of the brief that we tabled, and specifically subparagraph 31.2(1)(d) of the Regulation respecting parental insurance plan premiums. There you will find the provisions that mimic subsection 8(2) of the Employment Insurance Act with respect to the reasons that can give rise to an extension of the qualifying period. In that regard, Quebec has added a strike or lockout as a potential reason for extending the qualifying period.

We believe that the federal Employment Insurance Act should take its inspiration from that statute. It is our view that the very minimum provision the House of Commons should consider would be to make labour disputes—which were completely forgotten, as we mentioned a little earlier—a reason for extending the qualifying period, along the same lines as the other reasons set out in subsection 8(2) of the Employment Insurance Act. It is simply a matter of adding labour disputes, strikes and lockouts to the list of reasons.

Madam Chair—and I will end on this—this is not a partisan matter. There really is no partisanship involved here. It is our humble opinion that the Standing Committee on Human Resources could easily and unanimously propose that the Parliament of Canada pass this legislative measure. What do you think?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will begin our first round of questions. We are going to begin with five-minute rounds, but we're just going to confirm what time the bells will ring. If they ring at quarter after and we do five-minute rounds, everybody....

Is it half-past? Okay. We weren't quite sure.

Then let's start with seven minutes, and we all should be able to get a round. We'll begin with Madame Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to say that I like the bill. From your presentation, it has been very clear that the people who are on strike and then subsequently return to work and are fired or let go or the company shuts down, or what have you, shouldn't be penalized for the time that they were either locked out or on strike. They're actually not unemployed. They're not off the payroll. They're actually still employees of that company; they're just not being paid for that period. There's the penalty. So I understand, and I don't have great problems with the bill as such, I must say.

I asked some questions earlier of our colleague who has put the bill forward. One of the questions that is being asked and has come up with us is will this--and as you are with labour, I think it's important to ask you--cause an undue advantage for labour? In other words, if the employees know that they are not going to lose out on the amount of time that they're on strike, would that in any way make it more difficult for negotiations, that labour gets an advantage in that way?

This is something that has been raised, and I don't buy it, but I really want to hear from you as labour representatives about what you think, having been in situations like that and obviously having negotiated walkouts or labour disputes before. How would this play into that?

[Michel Ducharme]

I do not see what role that could play. I have been representing workers for more than 35 years now. I do not know of any worker who wants to go on strike; it is the ultimate step under our system of bargaining. It is time that the legislation was brought up to date. Strikes and lockouts are part and parcel of a labour relations system that is recognized by our laws in Canada and Quebec. These are not illegal actions; they happen. In terms of entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits, I want to stress the fact that we established a system to protect people when they lose their jobs.

We are all paying into that system, both workers and employers and these contributions are intended to protect us in cases of plant or company closures. That is part of what makes them legitimate. When a labour dispute arises when a collective agreement is to be renewed, the idea is to save jobs. Some unions provide strike pay, but the whole idea is not to be off the job, but rather to save that job, preserve working conditions and reach an agreement. If that turns out not to work, that is something the worker has no control over. The workers pay into the system for 25 or 30 years, and are working for a company that has always operated and has never had layoffs. Then, from one day to the next, the company shuts down. It is illogical for people not to be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits in those cases. That is precisely the whole purpose of these benefits.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

I have another question.

[Michel Ducharme]

I do not know whether Mr. Pothier wants to add something.

[Mario Pothier, As an Individual]

I have a hard time understanding how people could think that, if this bill were to pass, it could prejudicially affect negotiations. We want workers to be eligible once the closure has been announced. At that point, negotiations have ended. The decision has been made, the company has shut down, and that is when the workers would be affected by this bill. I do not see how it could have a negative impact on negotiations.