Bill C-395 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute)

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to change the way in which the qualifying period is calculated in the case of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.

[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.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Fellow colleague, Mr. André, I want to come back to a question that was raised earlier by Mr. Komarnicki. He was at least moving into that territory.

In Bill C-395, it's clear that you want employees to get benefits during a lockout period. To reframe, rephrase, or repeat the question, do you think employers should get a payroll holiday, with no payroll taxes, or some type of compensation when employees go on strike?

In other words, as we know, both employers and employees pay premiums. We've had it taken off our cheques. How fair is it to give one side more benefits than the other? It's what you're in effect doing. You're giving some benefits to the worker at that time, but no work gets done. Should the employer get a payroll holiday or some type of compensation during that period of time?

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

I guess we should talk about the whole process surrounding changes to the Employment Insurance program, as developed by the Bloc Québécois—this bill, as well as others like it. Consultations were held with unions, obviously, as well as with employers and other institutions.

I would like to provide an example with respect to the waiting period—the bill proposing the elimination of the waiting period and this bill. Employers are not always very happy about leaving their employees without any income when there is a waiting period, because of a lockout or a temporary layoff.

When the Employment Insurance system is enhanced, I think all of society benefits. That is why, generally speaking, measures proposed in bills that deal with Employment Insurance are often very well received by employers, employees, social and community groups, socioeconomic groups and chambers of commerce. They know full well that when you deprive a group of people of income, you are penalizing the entire community. The workers are poorer as a result, meaning that they are unable to buy anything, and this sometimes has repercussions for the family and the children.

Overall, the measures proposed in Bill C-395, as well as in the other bills, were developed by the Bloc Québécois following consultations with a wide variety of socioeconomic actors in Quebec.

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

No cost estimate has been done because this type of labour dispute usually is resolved. However, there are exceptions. In this case, we are talking about 450 workers who were deprived of EI benefits. I have not done the math, but perhaps I could ask the Committee to do that. I do not think we are talking about exorbitant amounts of money. As I say, 450 unemployed workers for 50 weeks. Without wanting to offend anyone, I would just like to point out that the Conservative government is planning to remove some $19 billion in Employment Insurance contributions over the next four years. We know full well that the government has some $55 or $60 billion in the EI fund. I am confident that we can meet the objectives laid out in Bill C-395, which does not represent exorbitant amounts of money. Other bills designed to enhance the Employment Insurance system have also been tabled—for instance, one that proposes to abolish the waiting period. Despite the cost of these measures, there will be a perfectly adequate surplus in the Employment Insurance fund for the government to be able to use this money as it sees fit, as it has been doing for the last several years to reduce the deficit or for other purposes.

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

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair, colleagues representing all the parties, I, of course, want to thank you for inviting myself and Mr. Yvon Lévesque to appear before the Committee to discuss Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute). I introduced this bill in the House of Commons for the first time in the second session of the current Parliament, back in May of 2009. It amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend eligibility to individuals who have lost their jobs following a labour dispute, either a lockout or a strike.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois is still of the view that the Employment Insurance system is not meeting its objectives and should undergo thorough reforms, because thousands of workers are unable to access it. The Bloc Québécois is therefore proposing a series of enhancements to the Employment Insurance system, including improving access and, of course, removing the waiting period. Having said that, the bill under consideration today does not propose significant changes to the Employment Insurance program. Indeed, that is not the purpose of Bill C-395.

Madam Chair, this bill is intended to correct a major omission or shortcoming in the Employment Insurance Act which affects thousands of workers when businesses shut down following a labour dispute, either a strike or a lockout.

At the present time, the Employment Insurance Act calculates benefits based on a given salary during a given period, known as the “qualifying period”, as you most certainly already know, being members of this Committee. As you all know, the normal qualifying period covers the 52 weeks that precede the start of the benefit claim period, or the period between the start of a previous claim and the start of the new claim, which is based on the claimant's insurable earnings.

However, the qualifying period may be extended in certain cases, up to a maximum of 104 weeks, for a variety of reasons, including the inability to work because of illness or injury. Where individuals do not work during the qualifying period, of course, they are not contributing to the Employment Insurance system and are therefore not covered.

However, what happens at the end of a long labour dispute, where there has been a strike or the business has shut down? Of course, if the labour dispute is of short duration, the laid off worker will receive Employment Insurance benefits if that period falls within the qualifying period. However, if the labour dispute lasts a long time—in other words, longer than the qualifying period—the laid off worker will not make contributions during the qualifying period and will therefore not be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits based on the provisions of the current Act. Therefore, the Employment Insurance Act makes no provision for cases involving lengthy labour disputes, which, unfortunately, often result in business closures.

Madam Chair, let's look at an actual example from Quebec. I am sure you have heard of the 425 Domtar workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon who were laid off in December and deprived of employment insurance. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity, Madam Chair, to convey greetings to my colleague who is here today, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who was the driving force behind the bill we are considering today. This plant is located in his riding.

I would also like to draw the Committee's attention to the presence here today of Mr. Mario Pothier, President of Local 1492 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as well as Josselin Bouchard, a worker who has been directly involved in the labour dispute in Lebel-sur-Quévillon.

They are the ones that pay the price for the current gap in the Employment Insurance Act.

After a lockout that lasted approximately three years, Domtar finally announced on December 19, 2008 that its plant in Lebel-sur-Quévillon would shut down for good. Because it was a very lengthy labour dispute, that lasted three years, and because laid off workers had not accumulated any hours of work during the qualifying period—the 52 weeks—they were not eligible for Employment Insurance, even though they had been contributing to the EI fund for 25 or 30 years.

Essentially, even though they had been locked out for more than three years, Domtar employees still had a job attachment. They were not contributing, because they were receiving strike fund pay, and they obviously did not accumulate any hours of work during the qualifying period. Therefore, under section 27, they were not eligible to receive Employment Insurance benefits.

This is an exceptional and shocking situation. It reflects a major gap in the Employment Insurance Act that must be corrected as soon as possible. I am making an appeal to MPs from all the parties: it is critical that they listen to what is being proposed here in this bill. We must take action to help these workers who have been completely abandoned by the Employment Insurance system.

Let us not forget that many of the workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon had worked without interruption—as I pointed out earlier—for 25, 30, 35 years and more. They obviously made contributions throughout those years, without ever receiving a cent in EI benefits. Then when they lost their jobs following a three-year lockout, they all applied for Employment Insurance benefits, but their applications were rejected, Madam Chair. Why should they have been refused Employment Insurance benefits? It is inconceivable, it is sad and it is a disgrace. These workers have paid a high price for that injustice.

Bill C-395 proposes to exclude, from the qualifying period, the period covered by the labour dispute. Therefore, a worker who loses his job when a company shuts down following a lockout or a strike would see his benefits calculated based on the 52-week period preceding the labour dispute. Whether the dispute lasted two or three years, the calculation would be made based on the period prior to the labour dispute.

In Quebec, according to the Department of Labour's data for the period from 1995 to 2004, which we examined, there were, on average, slightly fewer than four long-term labour disputes per year. These are disputes that may last—as was the case for the Journal de Québec—for more than 14 months. However, the Domtar workers' case is exceptional, because in Quebec, no more than eight labour disputes lasted in excess of 721 days between 1995 and 2004, and barely 0.5% of labour disputes lasted more than two years in the last 20 years.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. On this Wednesday, April 21, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., we are convening our 12th meeting here in Room 308, West Block.

On today's agenda is Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute). I would like to welcome our fellow MPs, Mr. Guy André, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, and Mr. Yvon Lévesque, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who has asked to appear as the second witness. Is there any objection?

I see no objection, so please take your seat, Mr. Lévesque. Welcome to our Committee.

Mr. André, Mr. Lévesque, you have 10 minutes to make your opening presentation, and I think you are as familiar with the system as I am.

Mr. André, I believe that you are going to start. Please proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I will just let the committee know that next Wednesday we probably will have time and room in our schedule for them, because it's looking like we'll be able to deal with Bill C-395 and Bill C-308 in their entirety over the next couple of meetings. I'll just put that out there for the committee to consider.

Is it the will of the committee that we bring in these witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We have Bill C-395 and we're finishing up Bill C-308. So we do have a few witnesses. We've had some logistical problems, but we're fitting them in.

What I'd like to do is at least start to plan the adoption study. It is some time away, but we do find sometimes it's a challenge getting witnesses lined up, so I'd rather be a little ahead of the game and have some planning on it. So when I say having Mr. Watson as early as possible, we're probably looking at late April or early May, but I just want to suggest that we bring him in early in the process. That way we can include his testimony in some of our suggestions.

Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You get one less person.

It was moved by Mr. Savage. All in favour of the budget?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Thank you. The budget is agreed upon.

There are just a couple of items on which I want to give you some information. Mr. André will be bringing Bill C-395, his private member's bill, probably as soon as we get back in April, at some point. I just want to ask all of you, if you have any witnesses you would like to bring forward, if you could please get that to the clerk in the next 48 hours it would be appreciated. Then we can start planning the work surrounding Bill C-395. That was Mr. André's bill, the one where if there is a labour dispute your hours would be counted towards the waiting time. If you could, in the next 48 hours, please get those suggestions to our clerk, then we can start planning that.

I also want to let you know that you can expect that by April 12 we should start receiving some of the preliminary chapters on the poverty report. Some of the translation will be completed, so you'll have it in your hands and we can start at least having a look at it and deciding what we might want to do when we move forward. We still have a bit of work to do as far as witnesses are concerned, but at least we can start looking at that report.

And then the last item I want to discuss is the study we are going to be undertaking on adoption. We need to start planning that and the scope of it. I would like to suggest to the committee that we bring forward as a witness Mr. Watson. I would like to do it as soon as possible. He was the one who had initially brought forward this motion, and I think he could maybe help us with some terms of reference as far as what we should be looking at. I think it's an opportunity for us to maybe even produce a landmark report, because it's been a long time since adoption has been looked at in Canada and a lot has changed. I think we probably would want to bring him forward anyway, because he knows a lot about this. But I'd like to see us bring him forward as a witness, and he actually would provide information on what kinds of witnesses we want to bring forward and what kind of testimony we want to hear.

Could I hear some thoughts on that?

Madam Folco.

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the issue of royal recommendation and ways and means motions with respect to private members' business

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on those same items likewise survive prorogation.

Specifically there are nine bills on which the Chair either commented, ruled or has heard a point of order with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. There was also one bill on which a point of order was raised regarding the requirement for a ways and means motion.

The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings and of the questions that remain to be dealt with.

Members will recall that, during the last session, some private members’ bills were found by the Chair to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were seven such bills on the order of precedence or in committee.

Let us review briefly the situation in each of these seven cases.

Three of these bills were awaiting report stage in the House at the time of prorogation, namely: Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore;

Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi;

Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

On May 12, 2009, the chair had ruled that Bill C-201, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee, all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-201 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

As for Bill C-241 and Bill C-280, the chair ruled on April 22, 2009 and on June 3, 2009 respectively, that these bills in their present forms required royal recommendation. The committee stage has not altered this finding.

The following four bills were at committee stage: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), standing in the name of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska was before the Standing Committee on Finance; Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, was before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

finally, Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Chair ruled that all these bills in their present forms needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The rulings were given on October 23, 2009 for Bill C-290, on October 29, 2009 for Bill C-308, on June 16, 2009 for Bill C-309 and, more recently, on November 16, 2009 for Bill C-395.

Furthermore, points of order were raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader at the end of the last session with respect to the need for a royal recommendation for two bills. These are: Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Both of these bills were at second reading.

Just as was done in the last session, the Chair invites other members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for those two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity in order for the Chair to come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.

Finally, a point of order was raised during the last session regarding Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (revocation of registration), standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, arguing that it should have been proceeded by a ways and means motion. The Chair has taken the matter under consideration and a ruling will be delivered in the days to come.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

It being 1:35, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, they're still looking.

Mr. Bédard, I want to thank you very much, once again, for taking the time out of your schedule to be here today. You can step back from the table whenever you want.

I want to remind committee members that when we come back in the new year we have Bill C-308, Mr. Lessard's bill. We have Bill C-395. We have our report on poverty, which we're still working on. And we have a motion that came forward in terms of dealing with some studies. It's motion M-386 regarding adoption and things like that.

When we come back in the new year I'm going to suggest that we have a subcommittee meeting right away to determine the order of preference of business and try to map out a plan.

I wanted to throw that out to the committee since this is our last meeting before we break for Christmas.

I see a couple of hands.

Mr. Martin and then Ms. Minna.

Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the Bloc Québécois is currently against any motion that would restrict debate on a bill to implement back to work legislation for Canadian National strikers, since the Bloc Québécois believes that at this stage, such a bill is premature.

We would rather that the parties continue talks. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, the parties are currently in talks, and the issues continues to evolve. It is important to keep up this pace of negotiations and continue to recognize a union's right to strike. The right to negotiate a collective agreement has been recognized for many years, was even recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For a number of years in Canada and Quebec, more and more collective agreements have been negotiated without strikes or lockouts. That is a sign of a radical shift in the past few years, and it is a sign that employers know they are better off sitting down at a negotiating table than sitting down and trying to have the government implement back to work legislation.

Long-term collective agreements have been negotiated for some years now. In many cases, agreements are negotiated every 5, 10 or 15 years. Now, imagine if we were to intervene in a case like this. Workers would not be able to protect their legitimate rights in the collective agreement, in order to significantly improve their working conditions or to change existing conditions, if changes are deemed necessary by one of the parties.

Employers now know that they must negotiate long-term agreements because everything changes quickly: technology changes quickly, and labour relations change quickly. Employers need to be more flexible and need to be in partnership with workers. It is more profitable for companies to work this way.

Thus, employers are changing their way of doing things, while the government is still in the same place, with back to work legislation that never fundamentally resolves the problems or the main issues in a collective agreement, because a third party is asked to resolve the problems. When a third party resolves the situation, labour relations between the parties are not based on mutual trust, and that does not help improve or strengthen labour relations.

I would like to quote Ron Lawless, who was the president of CN in the 1990s. What he said then still holds true today. Mr. Lawless said that government intervention in collective bargaining interferes with good business practices. In addition, back to work legislation and arbitration do not help the parties properly address the main issues. This sort of legislation prevents the parties from taking collective bargaining seriously.

The president of CN said that some years ago, and it could still apply today. This is a regressive law from a regressive government that persists in using this sort of legislation even though, a few years ago—I am thinking of 2004, for example—labour disputes at the federal level were settled without back to work legislation. There were strikes, but they were settled and the parties eventually reached an agreement. Today in those groups, management and labour get along well.

Regarding CN, in 2007, the Conservatives, who had come to power the year before, had already started introducing back to work legislation that benefited employers, but not necessarily workers.

But essentially, the problems are never resolved with this approach. Frustration and bitterness remain, and the parties are never able to build good labour relations.

Looking at the current situation at CN, we can say that labour relations have been unhealthy for some time now. It started in 2007, when the Conservative government passed the first law to force the conductors back to work. The union at the time was the same. The same labour relations problems exist today: grievances, disciplinary action, suspensions, layoffs. All the rules for implementing the collective agreement are being challenged in all their forms. How can healthy labour relations be established under such conditions?

Once again, this employer is expecting the government to pass back to work legislation and abolish the workers' right to negotiate a collective agreement. But the right to strike is recognized as a fundamental right. What is happening is that employers like CN are sitting back and waiting for the Conservative government to legislate employees back to work.

Let us take a look at other CN groups. Labour relations were starting to get established. The 2004 strike was settled after 30 days and activities were resumed. I am referring to the carmen and other tradespeople. I am not saying that everything is resolved, but the two parties began working together to establish good relations.

CN's collective agreements have a long history and they allow problems to be resolved. Significant precedents have been built up.

In the matter before us, CN has taken every measure possible to exert pressure on the engineers. It now wants to force them to increase their hours of work, even double them, which is more than the Canadian average. It wants these workers to do more for less, which would put lives in danger.

For decades, the current system has never been challenged. Today, that is what CN is doing. It wants to use the Conservative government for its own purposes, namely to increase the hours of work of the engineers who drive the locomotives.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary spoke of the economic crisis, saying that this will cause significant losses. I do not know where he is getting his information from because we were told that CN has been training its management and a large group of non-unionized employees for months in order to maintain over 60% of its service.

Canadian Pacific, which has two parallel lines all across Canada—one is CN's the other is CP's—could cover the other 40% of the service CN claims not to be able to provide.

Let me take this even further. There are truck drivers who can step in, not to mention the short lines in the regions that can be used to serve the Canadian public. For the Montreal region, for example, AMT signed an agreement and passenger service is still running, such that we now have roughly 120% service.

Given all these possibilities, I wonder why the Conservatives think there is a crisis and a need for additional service. We have to allow the negotiations to continue in good faith between the parties and force them to agree on a collective agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, that is not what we are doing. We are telling them that every time they go to negotiation they will get legislation. This type of legislation has reappeared significantly since the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

Earlier, I was talking about various strikes. I will digress for a moment. Services do not require back to work legislation. According to CN, and based on existing options, service will be maintained. In 2004, a strike was settled after 30 days. Since that time, working relations have been different but some things have been resolved. In 2007, after the arrival of the Conservatives, there was the dispute with the conductors and a law was imposed after two weeks. The bitterness remains. When the same people involved in a disastrous conflict are seated around the negotiating table for months and months, mutual trust will disappear and it will be difficult to rebuild it. It rarely happens. That type of situation requires mediation and conciliation. I have always said that, if necessary, it takes an army of mediators and conciliators.

It has been proven in the past that it is possible to resolve disputes, to move things forward. Also, progress has been made. On Friday, they were saying that there would be no arbitration. Today, they are talking about arbitration for some aspects of the collective agreement. There has been progress.

Why would we want to stop these negotiations after three days? That is the Conservative practice, which they applied in 2007. They stopped negotiations. That did not improve employer-employee relations, which remain strained to this day. If we look at the Conservative approach to employee support, for example, in the auto sector, we see they wanted to impose wage cuts. I am not quite sure that it was in the workers' interests. Fortunately, the union found other solutions.

With regard to collective agreements in the federal public service, where there have been significant cutbacks and the erosion of pay equity, I am not sure that it is a pro-worker approach. The Bloc Québécois' Bill C-395, to exclude the employment insurance waiting period in the event of a work conflict, was also rejected.

Given all of these stances, which are not pro-worker, it should come as no surprise that we are considering back to work legislation today, but unfortunately, not for the right reasons.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of the motion and will not support such a bill. We have to make it possible for these CN workers—like the other CN workers who were able to participate in good-faith negotiations between the parties—to resolve the existing issues between the parties. This is not just about resolving economic and salary issues. This is also about using these collective agreements to resolve grievances and the issues arising from these grievances and coming up with a labour relations framework to resolve these issues.

Imposing legislation like what has been proposed ignores all of these issues. Of course, the Conservatives have been accustomed to doing that for some time. They ignore the issues, and when it comes to labour, they have been doing that for a long time, and been standing in the way of resolving problems through collective agreements.

Nothing was resolved in the federal workers' collective agreement. There are ongoing talks with employees under federal jurisdiction, federal government employees in particular, and the issues are not being resolved. The same thing will happen with the rail sector and CN.

These are the reasons why we intend to vote against this motion, which is premature.

The House resumed from November 16, consideration of the motion that Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #130

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Shefford for his excellent speech on Bill C-395. In his many years at the FTQ, the member was an advocate for workers facing health and safety issues. It is clear that he is very concerned by what people affected by problems in the workplace, work accidents or a layoff are experiencing.

Of course, we are at the end of the study of the bill at second reading. The bill's objective is to improve the situation of workers affected by a labour dispute or a lockout. However, as my colleague so eloquently explained, if the qualifying period exceeds 52 weeks, people lose their entitlement to EI even though they worked for 20 or 30 years. That is shameful.

I have been here since 2004 and during that time, we have had many debates on EI. Many bills whose objective was to improve the EI system have been introduced in the House.

It is important to remember that workers and employers are the ones who contribute to the employment insurance fund. Over the past 15 or 20 years, the fund accumulated a surplus in excess of $57 billion. The government got that money from workers and employers. The government does not contribute to the employment insurance fund.

Here in the House, the government has restricted access to the employment insurance program. It started with Paul Martin's Liberal government and continued with the Conservatives. Despite the economic crisis, nothing is being done for workers. The government is investing huge sums of money in the military and is spending billions to support Alberta's oil industry, which is polluting our whole planet.

The Conservative government really does not care about workers, nor does it support them. During election campaigns, the Conservatives try to manipulate public opinion by saying that they want to help workers and people struggling with various issues. But here in the House, I have no doubt that the Conservatives will vote against this bill even though I hope they will not. From what the Conservative member said, I gather that they will be voting against this bill. That is shameful and senseless.

This is a simple bill. It states that people who have worked the required number of hours during a 52-week qualifying period and who have been involved in a lockout are entitled to employment insurance even after 52 weeks or following a prolonged strike.

In closing, I urge all members of the House to really give this some thought and vote with their heart and their conscience when the time comes to vote on Bill C-395 at second reading. When voting, we should keep in mind workers who have taken a stand to protect their rights and who, because they do not have access to employment insurance, cannot support their families when their employers lock them out following a prolonged dispute.

I also urge all members of the House to think about all of the bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois, such as eliminating the waiting period and improving the employment insurance system. They should think about voters who have so often been denied access to benefits when they lose their jobs or are involved in a prolonged labour dispute.