Human Resources Committee on April 21st, 2010

[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.

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

I am very pleased to do so. Madam Chair, colleagues…

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. André, but there is a point of order.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to raise a quick point of order with respect to the minister's recent appearance on the main estimates and report on plans and priorities. I know it involves Monsieur Lessard and I wanted him to be here when I raised the point. My colleagues and I had agreed to the minister appearing for a longer period of time. In fact, I believe it was for 90 minutes, and we were okay with that for the purpose, basically, of questioning the minister and of course allowing the minister to answer.

Monsieur Lessard posed probably some six minutes of questions without giving the minister an opportunity to respond. It is our view that those questions can be posed outside of the committee, if that's the desire, through questions on the order paper. But in the future, it would be my view that if we were supportive of the minister appearing here for that length of time, there should be an opportunity given to the minister to respond. I take objection to the fact that almost the entire seven minutes were used for questioning without a suitable response time being given. If we want the minister for a longer period of time, there needs to be give and take.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

Mr. Lessard, would you like to respond?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, I am pleased that our colleague has raised this. It is something that I also could have raised, because in the past, it has happened that a simple question results in a seven-minute answer. However, we have not raised that here. Of course, the process is such that our time for asking questions is limited. I felt that, under the circumstances, and given the number of questions I wanted to ask, I should ask them one after the other and let the Minister answer the ones she was able to answer. The other answers that could not be provided here in Committee could have been forwarded in writing. That is quite simply what I did.

Is there a desire to manage our time differently? Perhaps we should discuss this. If so, we would also have to agree that answers should not take six or seven minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I don't think, Mr. Komarnicki, that the intent of your intervention was to change the rulings. I think you wanted to make known your opinion on this. Am I correct?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's true, but part of the reason for agreeing to the minister's lengthier appearance was to ensure there was give and take. I'm not suggesting anything beyond the fact that in the future we would appreciate the minister being given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

That being the case, I think we could probably let all the members know that, henceforth, when a minister is appearing—or any witness—we should try to give the witness plenty of time to answer within the seven or five minute time limit. I think we can leave it at that.

Is this acceptable, Mr. Komarnicki?

Do you also agree with that, Mr. Lessard?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I just would like to mention the response time. Sometimes the answers can be very brief—a yes or a no. At other times, someone may talk for three or four minutes without an answer ever being given. So, I really do not know how to deal with this, Madam Chair. It is a little tricky to say to a minister that he or she should get to the point; they are not being cross-examined in front of a court of law.

Perhaps this is the kind of issue that should be debated or looked at by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is something that should be reviewed so that we can arrive at a system that works for both the people asking the questions and those answering.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Lessard, I would suggest that we leave things as they are for the time being and, if you decide to pursue this, you may want to discuss it with the Chair when she returns in a few minutes. I hesitate to go any further with this, since I am not chairing the meeting.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I would like to add one thing, if you do not mind. If our colleague, Mr. Komarnicki, agrees with me, we could simply refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because, in any case, we will not be able to deal with it here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I suggest that the two of you get together after the meeting this afternoon or at another time.

Mr. André, Mr. Lévesque, please accept my apologies for the delay. Mr. André, this time, it really is your turn to speak.

[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]

Could you please conclude your remarks?

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

I shall, Madam Chair.

And again, the labour dispute would have to result in the company shutting down altogether. This is clearly not something that happens very often, even though its consequences are profoundly unfair for the men and women involved.

I believe that passing this bill would be a simple and fair way to remedy the current gap in the Employment Insurance program. I appeal to all members of the Committee to support this bill out of a concern for fairness. To not do so would be to deprive hundreds of workers of what they are rightly owed, given the contributions they made for many years. Thank you.

I am now available to take your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. André.

Mr. Lévesque, although you did not have a chance to make a presentation, I think you will have ample opportunity to answer questions.

The questions can obviously be addressed to either one of our witnesses.

We will begin with a seven-minute round.

Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the committee.

I support the intent of the bill. I think it is important to address this issue, but I would like to look at a couple of things in the bill that need clarification—for me anyway.

What happens if someone who is on strike finds a part-time job and is actually working during that period and then goes back and is paying benefits? How would we track that and deal with that? How is that overlap addressed in the bill? I don't see that in the bill, which is just making a fairly straightforward change.

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

I will try to answer your question. Of course, the bill proposes that the qualifying period prior to a strike or lockout be taken into account. Therefore, if a worker is eligible for employment insurance and has worked enough hours prior to the labour dispute to qualify, under the proposed legislation, that worker will be eligible for EI benefits after the dispute, of course.

If, for example, a worker accumulates… As you know, when workers are on strike or locked out, they are often entitled to a certain amount of strike pay through their strike fund. For instance, if someone works a certain number of hours while on strike, I imagine that any hours he accumulates during that period will be taken into account, because he will have made contributions to Employment Insurance.

Basically, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the qualifying period prior to the dispute and strike to be taken into account.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Lévesque, would you like to add something?

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

Yes, Madam Chair.

The way the Employment Insurance Act is currently structured, a person who retains a job attachment with a company is not eligible for EI benefits while on strike or locked out. In order to be eligible, that person must be able to prove his availability for work. So, if he is on strike, as long as the strike is ongoing, all his hours of work are not deemed to constitute a job attachment to the employer against whom the worker is striking. However, he does have the right to accumulate hours during a qualifying period. If, while the strike is ongoing, he can work enough hours to qualify, he is entitled to EI benefits subsequently, whether or not a strike is ongoing at his regular employer's company.

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

Thank you.

I understand the bill ensures that people who are on strike do not lose the period of time they're on strike when their EI is calculated. I understand that, but in the bill we have an extension of up to 52 weeks and an exemption for people who are ill or have other problems. That's already in the act now, so you're adding this portion. But you're going beyond the 52 weeks; you're going to 104 weeks, and there's actually no maximum provided in the bill. I'm wondering why you would do that and why that would be different from other situations.

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

There are other situations, such as Employment Insurance sickness benefits. That is one example we gave. A bill drafted by the Bloc Québécois dealing with that is in the works. At the present time, someone who is sick with cancer, for instance, is only entitled to 15 weeks of EI benefits. We will be tackling that issue in another bill, because we believe that someone with no private insurance who must make up for lost income during illness is excessively penalized.

The bill we are proposing today focuses specifically on situations where workers are on strike or are locked out.

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

But you're going beyond the 52 weeks. You're looking at the whole period they were on strike, so you're making it quite different from the exemptions that are already in the legislation, such as for illness. So I was asking you why you're making it longer.

I understand what you're saying, because they might be on strike much longer, but then a person may be ill for a much longer period of time, and there's a maximum now. That's why I'm wondering why this one is being treated differently from the other, from your perspective. Why does it need and deserve to be treated differently?

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

I think it is important to remember the context. There was a strike prior to the lockout at Lebel-sur-Quévillon—it was the strike at Radio Nord—which is part of a region. We live in a region made up of small and mid-sized towns. When there is a strike at one business, quite often it is the whole municipality that is on strike. The strike at Radio Nord lasted more than two years. Had that company decided to shut down after the strike, the workers would not have been eligible for employment insurance. And that is exactly what happened at Lebel-sur-Quévillon.

Lebel-sur-Quévillon is a single-industry town. The town and its surrounding area are not immune, and provision must be made for that. Most of the people who went there moved to Lebel-sur-Quévillon and bought houses with the intention of spending their lives there. They worked there for 25 or 30 years, or even more than 30 years in many cases. They are very well established there, they have homes there. Lebel-sur-Quévillon is an isolated town. The closest town is 170 kilometers away. People cannot be travelling 170 kilometers every morning and every evening to go to work. They were not able to qualify for an additional period of EI benefits.

That could happen to other towns. Workers have no control in these cases; it is the company that is in control. Often a company will use a lockout or force workers to go on strike in order to extend its restructuring period, in order to stay afloat. If they realize, once the strike or lockout is over, that this is not going to be possible, they shut down. And who suffers the consequences? The people that work for the company.