Human Resources Committee on April 21st, 2010

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

According to research, only one labour dispute in recent years has lasted as long and would give rise to entitlement under the program—even now, that continues to be the case.

And we are not even talking about 425 workers. At the time the company decided to shut down, approximately 180 of these workers would have been entitled—or would be entitled today—to benefits under this new measure.

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

I gather you haven't made this bill specific to that situation; you've made it general. If I understand what you're trying to say here, it is that the qualifying period from when they were working would be extended by the same amount of time or number of days that they may be on strike or lockout. In essence, you're indirectly attempting to qualify a person by using the hours that they are on strike, notwithstanding that they're not available for work for that particular employer and in fact are not engaged, so to speak, in that enterprise.

Am I understanding that correctly?

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

I do not see why, following a lockout, workers who have contributed to Employment Insurance for 20 or 25 years—like their employers—and who have never received even a penny in EI benefits, would not be entitled to Employment Insurance. We are talking about a lockout here—a situation where a company shuts down for three years.

That is inconceivable. It is unfair.

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

Excuse me.

If I understand you correctly, in essence, if the hours that you're on strike count towards your qualifying period so that you can get EI, and if you accept the fact that both the employer and the employee pay premiums, one would indirectly come to the conclusion that the employer would be paying during those strike hours towards the employees' potentially getting a benefit, even though they're not available for work and are not engaged with that particular business.

Do you think it might be unfair to the employer to have that happen?

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

As for whether it would be unfair to the employer, I would say, first of all, that these employees still have a job attachment. As long as a labour dispute, a lockout or a strike is underway, employees retain their job attachment. They are not working anywhere else and they are caught up in this dispute, in a single-industry town where the only available jobs in the municipality happen to be with a company that has locked out its workers.

Consequently, I do not see why they should not be entitled to Employment Insurance benefits. Whatever the qualifying period, they contributed to the Employment Insurance fund. As I say, this does not penalize the employers. When employers lay off workers who end up with no financial resources, those employers are generally not very proud of that outcome.

A social program, such as Employment Insurance, has to be there to help workers who end up in this kind of situation. That is what we are trying to do through this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll begin our second round, which will be a five-minute round.

We'll begin with Mr. Savage, please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, let me congratulate you both on getting this bill to this stage, Mr. Lévesque for inspiring it based on what you've seen in your own community and Mr. André for the work that you've done in taking it this far.

I don't know that I have a question. I may have a little comment, and then I'll just leave it to you.

People who are on strike or who are locked out do need some protection under the EI system. And there's another classification of people. I'm not sure whether this is where Ed was going or not, but another group of people who have been hurt in this recent recession are people who have seen their hours reduced by a company that is struggling and has had to reduce the hours of their employees, in some cases for an extended period of time, and then lays them off because they've closed. Then those people haven't had the number of hours they need to qualify for EI benefits. And they're stuck, because if they're told that they have to go on reduced hours and they quit their job, they don't qualify for EI because they have left their job. If they stay with the company and then get laid off, that could impact their benefits as well.

I wonder whether you have any thoughts on that.

Do you have any thoughts on that piece of it, Mr. André?

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

Indeed, in a dispute of this kind, some workers could work a certain number of hours and not be eligible for Employment Insurance. Some workers may have worked a certain number of hours even before the labour dispute began. In some cases, workers are able to work for the company and accumulate the required number of hours to be eligible for EI. Those situations exist.

However, there are other situations that can arise, such as a lengthy strike or lockout. As you know, employers do not necessarily rehire all the workers who were locked out or on strike for several years. In those cases, once again, we could be dealing with a situation where 50% of the workers are rehired and will be earning income. The other 50%, if there are layoffs following a lengthy labour dispute, will not be eligible for EI. Again, they are penalized.

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

It is important to consider the context. You cannot compare Lebel-sur-Quévillon to places like Trois-Rivières, Toronto, Sarnia, Windsor or Hamilton. In Lebel-sur-Quévillon, we are talking about 425 workers out of a population of approximately 990 workers. I did some calculations to see what the equivalent would be for Montreal. The 425 workers who lost their jobs in Lebel-sur-Quévillon would represent the equivalent of 55,000 jobs lost in Montreal. As was the case in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, if Montreal were suddenly to lose 55,000 jobs, there would be challenges for the rest of the population. There is the disadvantage of being in a large city, compared to Lebel-sur-Quévillon, which is a small town, with a very tight-knit community. The work was shared and people working for businesses in the town shared the available work so that people could accumulate the necessary number of hours. They had that opportunity, whereas a worker who has been locked out or who is on strike does not.

If you do not mind, could I just say, in response to the question asked earlier, that we are not asking that the number of hours during the strike or lockout be calculated; we are asking that this period not be included in the calculation and that it be carried forward instead to the time when the strike or lockout began.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I just have 30 seconds.

The Speaker has indicated that this will need a royal recommendation. How confident are you that the government will give it a royal recommendation? Second, when issues of EI come up, there is a legitimate question as to whether in fact a royal recommendation should be required, since we're talking about an EI fund rather than the consolidated revenue fund. I wonder whether you have thoughts specifically about the royal recommendation on this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You just have a few seconds to answer that, so do so quickly, if you could, please.

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

Briefly, the purpose of this process is to pressure the government into giving this bill the royal recommendation. We want Employment Insurance enhancements to be brought forward. All of the bills we are bringing forward are intended to help workers deprived of income; that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Vellacott, please.

[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]

While a labour dispute or strike is ongoing, if the employer does not hire back the workers, there are no premiums being paid, and nor do employees contribute to EI.

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

He's still paying for the individuals who are on strike over that period of time, is he not?

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

No, there is no cost under the EI program.

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

Is this true? I don't know if it's true.

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

Yes, it is.

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

During the period of the strike, is he not paying? I think he's still paying benefits.

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

A worker does not make EI contributions during the strike. Absolutely nothing is paid.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There are no benefits.

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

We'll have to check more on that.

If the government in effect compensates one side of the bargaining process by way of what you're suggesting here, how do you think it affects the negotiations between the employers and employees? In a sense, will it have any effect if the government is basically funding one side?

I think it's a fair question to ask. You may feel there's no effect at all. The government is funding one side, and the employer is getting nothing at that point.

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

First of all, I do not think the employer is compensating the workers, nor is it the other way around. It is a right; it is as simple as that. We are talking about workers who paid into the Employment Insurance program for many years and, at the end of a lengthy labour dispute, they are entitled to receive benefits; it is as simple as that.

In my opinion, this should not really pose a problem. Also, we all know that employee and employer EI contributions allowed the government to build up huge surpluses for many years. We are talking about $60 billion in the Employment Insurance fund, and an additional $19 billion that will be added to it in the next few years.

I think it is the employees who are penalized in a situation like that, not the employers, because the contributions they made are not being used to support the workers.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I accept the fact that the employee has paid in, but the employer has also paid in over that period of time. It's not only one person paying into the EI fund.

Have you done a costing for the bill with respect to how much this bill might in total cost the federal treasury?