Evidence of meeting #12 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was period.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you. In this case, we are not talking about providing protection for a prior period, but it is a question of fairness. This issue only became apparent because of the way modern companies are run. Such a scenario was not envisaged by the legislator when the original legislation was tabled.
As legislators, our job is to correct possible inequities in legislation. This is a flagrant inequity, which became obvious when this labour dispute ended. Experiencing a labour dispute such as this does not protect anybody else. This dispute happened. The one at the Journal de Montréal has still not been resolved. It could take a long time. Supposing the labour dispute at the Journal de Montréal goes on for an additional 13 months. That would be longer than the period which entitles workers to EI, and we would be facing the same problem as what occurred at Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The whole idea is to avoid these kinds of issues surfacing in future.
Let us take the example of subsection 8(7) of the Employment Insurance Act which is being amended. It says that “despite subsection (7), the extension of a qualifying period may equal the duration of the period of unemployment due to a labour dispute”. So, we are talking about the period during which there was a labour dispute. It is by that length of time that the qualifying period must be extended.
Perhaps we could explain it this way. Once a labour dispute--
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you.
I have a couple of other questions.
On the idea of a labour dispute, in Ontario anyway, I guess the English term is a wildcat strike, a strike that does not come at the end of a collective agreement. I don't know what the translation for that would be. This is when the workers simply walk out. In my working career, I've experienced this not as a union worker but on the other side. A wildcat strike was an interesting experience, to say the least. In the purview of this bill, does this fall under the definition of a labour dispute?
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
I did not understand that term. Oh, you were talking about a wildcat strike.
We are obviously making our views known because we think this is a worthwhile bill. It fits within the framework of current legislation. This is about labour disputes that are part and parcel of the current system of bargaining and labour relations set out in existing labour codes, both in Canada and Quebec. So, these are legal labour disputes.
They have occurred in the past.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I'm thinking of another potential labour dispute. What if an employee finds a working condition unsafe and puts in a refusal to work? Would that be considered a labour dispute? Let's say a business has been run down to a certain point and there was a labour dispute because of a working condition. If a group of employees or all the employees put in a refusal to work, would that be considered a legal labour dispute under this bill?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
When workers deem a situation to be dangerous, under the provisions of the Act respecting Occupational Health and Safety, they have a right to refuse unsafe work, but that right does not last for ever. The Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec obviously carries out an investigation and then hands down a decision. That is how those situations are resolved. We are not talking about a strike here.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I'm sorry. Yes, it's seven minutes. You've had your seven minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
We're not going for nine minutes, but it was a good try.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here. We are going to dismiss you at this time. We have a little committee business to look at. Thank you so much for being with us and for the information you've provided.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]