Evidence of meeting #15 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)) Conservative Candice Bergen
Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call to order meeting 15 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, we have before us Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), and we will now be going through clause-by-clause consideration.
(On clause 1)
Shall clause 1 carry?
Yes, Mr. Lessard.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, we already discussed it. Further to remarks made by witnesses, namely representatives of the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses and the FTQ, we examined clause 1 carefully. These witnesses were concerned about the benefits workers would receive during the period following the dispute. Initially, we thought it was obvious that the provision was included.
To be safe, though, it may be preferable to move an amendment that makes the intent of the bill perfectly clear.
I will hand out an amendment. We have begun discussing Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is that right?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I thought so. Very well. Someone missed the beginning of the meeting and told me I was not on the right bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay. So you don't want to amend clause 1 in Bill C-395; that's what you're saying.
Bloc
Conservative
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
It is line 19 on page 1. If I may, I will hand out the amendment in both official languages, and we can read it together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Mr. Lessard, I think you have the wrong one. We're looking at Bill C-395. Is that the bill you want to amend?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Yes. Are we talking about the same thing? I am also talking about Bill C-395.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay, then, we are on the same page.
Is it the line at the very end?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I will wait until everyone has the amendment, and then I will explain.
This will be the only amendment we put forward. As I said earlier, the purpose of the amendment is to add clarity. In our view, it is in keeping with the intent of the bill.
On line 19 of clause 1, on page 1, the sentence ends as follows: “where the person was employed.” In order to make it clearer, the period should be replaced by a comma followed by the addition of “provided that, for the purposes of determining the weekly rate of benefits, the qualifying period is established retrospectively to the fifty-two weeks preceding the beginning of the dispute.”
That way, the bill would indicate the date when the extension in question begins.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Monsieur Lessard, can I ask you one question to begin with? Your bill says to amend by replacing line 19, but you're referring to line 18.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you.
We are going to suspend for a few minutes so we can all have a chance to take a look at this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you.
Mr. Lessard, we'll ask you to please explain your amendment for us. We all think we understand it, but we would like to hear your explanation.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
This amendment helps to ensure that there will be no debate to grant rights other than those set out by the bill. So the amendment anchors the dispute in time, because it is the dispute that determines when people are no longer entitled to receive EI.
Witnesses pointed to the fact that when you do not specify when the person's entitlement to receive benefits begins, it can be open to interpretation. So we are saying that during the 52 weeks preceding the dispute, the worker must have been employed by the company in order to be considered to have been laid off when the employer shut down. It happened three years later, in this case.
I am not sure whether that is clear. At first, we did not think we needed to specify that, but, in light of what some witnesses pointed out, we think it might be open to interpretation otherwise. So we think it should be included in the bill.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I think the starting point behind the logic has to be in clause 2, as it appears here, which indicates the date that the bill comes into force, January 1, 2008. If I understand Mr. Lessard's amendment correctly, it would make it possible to limit the retroactivity set out in clause 1(2)(8) to 12 months. It could not go back more than 12 months before January 1, 2008. The period could begin only as of December 31, 2007. Therefore, Mr. Lessard's bill limits the retroactivity of the period.
Is that right, Mr. Lessard?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Those are two things, I believe. You are partly right, but we cannot grant a right that was not intended in the legislation. Entitlement to EI benefits is not retroactive. Benefits are applicable only as of the date when the workers were laid off, January 1, 2008. The dispute had gone on since 2005, for three years. So what we are saying is that, in order for a worker to be entitled to EI benefits, not only does the worker have to have been involved in the dispute and been locked out, but the worker must also have been employed by the employer during the 52 weeks preceding the beginning of the dispute. And that is what we want to clarify. Is that clearer now?
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I just have a couple of comments.
First, I've always felt that trying to craft a bill retrospectively to cover a particular situation, as Mr. Lessard has in mind, is not a good thing to do. Second, it is much broader than that and catches anyone who would have been in similar circumstances for the period starting January 1, 2008.
As I understand his amendment, if there were a dispute on January 2, 2008, you would reach back 52 weeks to 2007 to determine what benefits the person would be paid. But it would only be for those disputes that came into effect on January 1, 2008, or later.
Is that correct?