Human Resources Committee on April 21st, 2010

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

Thank you.

My only other question is probably shorter, and that has to do with the extension of the qualifying period if there should be a labour dispute, and whether that should continue to be without a specified maximum or it should be a maximum of 52 weeks, as it is for the other extensions that already exist for illness and injury and so on. I think your bill takes it beyond the 52. Maybe you can elaborate on that a little bit.

That's my last question, Madam Chair.

[Mario Pothier]

I do not think there should be any defined timeframe. A little earlier, some of the questions that were asked had to do with whether this happens often. In the history of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents 150,000 members across the country, the longest strike was the one in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, and the second longest was much shorter. This is not something that occurs frequently; these are exceptional cases. As a result, I do not think there should be a limit.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

There's a very little bit of time if you want to use a bit of it.

[Pierre Céré]

I have discussed this with others who have expertise as regards the application of the Employment Insurance Act. Based on the current wording, Bill C-395 would not provide for an extension longer than 104 weeks, because the qualifying period has not been redefined. In our opinion, there is a difference between adding a new reason, under subsection 8(2), whereby the qualifying period could be extended—in this case, a labour dispute—and going so far as to redefine the qualifying period in exceptional cases. This makes it possible to include workers who become injured, are involved in industrial accidents, become ill, or are affected by labour disputes or situations of considerable length.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Lessard, please.

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

First of all, I would like to thank you for being here to provide your testimony on this important bill. I have two questions for Mr. Pothier and Mr. Ducharme, who is also from the union, I believe.

You are a worker from Lebel-sur-Quévillon and a member of the union, Mr. Ducharme. I have two questions which relate to the way the rules apply during a labour dispute.

I also have a question for you, Mr. Céré, regarding eligibility for employment insurance.

Mr. Vellacott's comments earlier raised a matter of interpretation as regards the rights of the parties during a labour dispute. I myself have been involved in negotiations in the past, and unless things have changed, everything goes back to neutral—if I can put it that way—meaning that there is no advantage for either party and no contributions are made by either one for the duration of the dispute. Perhaps you could let me know whether that continues to be the case.

I am going to ask you my three questions so that you have time to answer. The other question—and Mr. Pothier has already partly answered this—has to do with the number of labour disputes. In order to be eligible for employment insurance at the end of the labour dispute—because it is only at the end that you are eligible for EI—there must have been a company closure or temporary layoffs. How many such labour disputes occur in Quebec? You work in labour relations, so I would be interested in knowing how many known cases could be affected by this legislation? Those two questions are addressed to you.

I will also put my question to Mr. Céré right away. Does this give a special advantage in terms of eligibility for employment insurance? Does it give special rights to certain workers in terms of eligibility during a labour dispute, or is it just a matter of applying the rules that already exist?

[Michel Ducharme]

With respect to your first question, I would say that during a strike or lockout, there is no longer any advantage. Nothing has changed, and everything is still the same. The employer no longer has any costs to defray. The costs for an employer are connected to the payroll. During a strike or lockout, no wages are being paid, no benefits either, and not one cent is remitted.

In response to your second question regarding the number of labour disputes, I obviously do not know of any others that lasted as long as the one in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. Could there have been other ones? Certainly. In recent year in Quebec, we have started to see fairly lengthy lockouts—more than a year in length. So, this certainly could have happened elsewhere.

I recall one labour dispute that was particularly difficult, which everyone is aware of—at least people in Quebec—and that is the one that occurred at Vidéotron. The issue in the negotiations with Vidéotron, whose employees had been locked out, was jobs. The employer wanted to eliminate all the technician positions, and it was so determined to do that that an entire fleet of trucks had been sold. The situation was clear: it was the point of no return. That dispute, which lasted more than a year, ultimately had a happy ending, because the employer made a commitment to keep its technicians and bought another fleet of vehicles. So, there was a happy outcome in that case.

Had the reverse been true, hundreds of workers might have lost their jobs at the end of the labour dispute. The situation would have been exactly the same, where people had made Employment Insurance contributions throughout the period they had been working, but then ended up in a labour dispute that they did not want. They would have ended up, once the labour dispute was over, with no jobs as a result of a decision that they had not made, and therefore, they might have ended up in the same position as the workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. They would have paid into the EI fund throughout their lives, as workers, without being able to receive benefits.

[Mario Pothier]

I would like to take a few seconds, if you do not mind. It is important to have a clear understanding of this. The question was whether there are a lot of labour disputes that last more than a year, or more than 52 weeks, and which result in a closure. The answer to that is no. That is clear.

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

[Technical difficulties--Editor] … qualifications.

[Pierre Céré]

In terms of qualifications, would that mean they have more rights? The answer is no, their rights would be equivalent to those of other workers in the following way.

There is a qualifying period that precedes the application for EI benefits. Let us take the example of a labour dispute that has ended. People are expecting to go back to work. Some lose their jobs, because there is a closure or positions are cut. When that happens, they apply for EI benefits. What does the Employment Insurance Commission do at that point? Well, it ascertains whether these individuals have worked in the course of the last year. If they were involved in a labour dispute during that last year, there are no hours of work, and therefore they are not eligible for employment insurance. And yet these people worked for many years prior to that. The Act does not include labour disputes as a reason for extending the infamous qualifying period. In Quebec, as I mentioned previously, the parental insurance plan does include that reason.

If a new paragraph (e) were to be added to subsection 8(2), to provide for labour disputes to be included as a reason for extending the qualifying period, those people could receive benefits after losing their jobs. We are not saying that everybody who is on strike or locked out should be able to claim Employment Insurance benefits. However, if workers lose their jobs following a labour dispute and apply for EI, the qualifying period would be extended by a number of weeks equal to the number of weeks they were involved in the labour dispute. If someone was affected by a labour dispute for nine months in the previous year, that person would therefore be entitled to a nine-month extension. The work time associated with the labour dispute would be included so that people who had lost their jobs could qualify for benefits. Subsection 8(2) of the Act also includes other reasons. It is highly technical, but it is important to understand that in order to see the rationale for the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll go to Mr. Martin, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Again, thank you very much for helping us understand more fully the implications of both doing this and not doing it.

One of the questions that was raised earlier was this issue of how much and who will pay. It seems to me--maybe you can help me understand, though I think I understand--money paid out in employment insurance benefits comes from the fund that is contributed to by both the employer and the employee; it's not the government. In the past the government has taken that money and put it into its general account and used it for all kinds of things, including paying down the debt and in some instances passing on huge corporate tax breaks to big companies. But there hasn't been much consideration for the needs of workers in special circumstances, such as the ones you're presenting here today.

Do I have that correct?

[Michel Ducharme]

Employment Insurance benefits are paid out of the contributions to the EI fund made by workers and employers. The government does not put any money into that fund. The benefits applied for under the EI program are paid for out of employer and worker contributions. The costs are connected to the contributions made by both parties. The government does not put any money into the Employment Insurance fund.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

The next question I have goes back to when unemployment insurance was first set up. It seems to me it was supposed to be a program that would do two things. One, it would make sure that workers who lost their jobs had some income while they looked for another job. It would save workers from having to go bankrupt, which would cost the whole system.

On the other hand, it was set up so companies wouldn't find themselves in court over issues with employees when workers lost their jobs. That fund would be there to help the company move those employees on, or even keep them around until the economy got better and they could hire them back again.

There was a benefit to both when unemployment insurance was set up.

You're asking simply that we continue in that spirit, particularly for the worker. You're asking that some bridge be provided from the end of the period of a strike when the company doesn't hire workers back, or the company dissolves, so the workers can keep going until they get their next job or the company gets back into business and can hire people back.

Is that correct?

[Michel Ducharme]

Did you get that? Personally, I had trouble following the translation. In any case, it is clear to us that EI benefits paid to workers who have lost their jobs are intended, first and foremost, to allow them to avoid going bankrupt. As we have often said, it is a highly productive measure for the local economy, where there have been layoffs and job losses. It is a way of preserving the economic life of these regions. In that sense, we see it as an important and productive measure.

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

It is not always easy for company owners, if they find themselves forced to lay off a highly skilled worker. They are always afraid that that worker might leave the area to go and work elsewhere, and that he will no longer be there when the business is able to start up again. In Level-sur-Quévillon, if the workers had been eligible for employment insurance when the lockout ended and the company finally shut down for good, many of them would have stayed. Indeed, the municipality tried very hard to get the company to start up again. However, all the other companies who were approached realized that most of the skilled Domtar workers had already left the municipality. In that isolated town, trying to bring back skilled workers once they have left is not an easy task. And, given what they had just been through, it was even more difficult. Had they received Employment Insurance benefits, most of those workers would probably have stayed behind and helped the municipality try to start up the company again. That is a strong economic argument.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

It says to me that what we have here is a natural evolution of a system that was put in place to protect workers and companies, I think.

Before Christmas we extended employment insurance to cover self-employed workers so that they could buy in. I believe they've done that in Quebec as well. That was an evolution of the program to take in more people and to be more helpful. It seems to me to make sense in this instance, when you've identified a place where workers need some help, and that it would be helpful, actually, overall. I have no reason to think that this isn't something we should be supporting in this place.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, guests, for taking the time to come here today.

For the benefit of the committee, would you be able to tell us what the longest outstanding labour dispute is that you have on record? I'm just curious.

[Michel Ducharme]

At the Journal de Montréal, the lockout started over a year ago. I believe it is the only lengthy labour dispute at this time. Job losses are bound to follow.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Did you say that it was one year?

[Michel Ducharme]

More than a year.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That hasn't been resolved to date. The legislation or the bill that's brought forward is targeted to a very few situations. I think we all agree on this. This is not something that is going to occur every week. Let's hope not, anyway.

I guess the point, based on that one example of the situation in Montreal we just spoke of, is that this bill may not provide much help for them. I'm just wondering, when we look at extending the qualifying period to 104, why the bill doesn't extend it to 1,004. I'm just curious. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Obviously, it's very specific. It's very targeted. Yet we see one case here where possibly this bill won't help those people this bill is trying to help. I'm just wondering if any of you could give me some insight on that, because it seems to me that a bill is being put before the committee that may already fail the people it's trying to help. I'm just trying to get an understanding of that, please.

[Michel Ducharme]

We have two comments in that regard. First of all, labour disputes should be included in the exceptions. We find it incomprehensible that it would not be included among the exceptions.

Also, if that exception were to be introduced into the Act right away or tomorrow, we would not have resolved the problem in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. It is quite clear that even if this exception were to be brought into the Act tomorrow morning, it would not affect disputes that have been ongoing for more than two years.

That is why we say that what is needed is an exception with respect to the qualifying period and an extension of that qualifying period. It has to be extended, because otherwise, we will not be including those cases that are even more rare, such as what happened in Lebel-sur-Quévillon.