Debates of Oct. 7th, 2009

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an excellent question. In rural and remote regions, as in the case the member mentioned, when a town relies on a single industry, these jobs often represent a livelihood for many families. It is a very difficult situation.

For example, when the 425 workers at the Domtar plant in Lebel-sur-Quévillon learned, just before the holidays, that they would lose their jobs and that they would not be eligible for any EI at all, they were shocked and frustrated. They had worked, and paid premiums for many years.

They were told that although they had paid their premiums, since the plant was closing down in their town, they would have no other source of income other than social assistance. That is shameful. I think this House can rectify the situation by overwhelmingly supporting this bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member on having introduced Bill C-395 to extend the qualifying period in the case of a labour dispute.

I would like to ask the member to clarify. Consider a labour dispute between employees and an employer, whether it is a lockout or a strike that lasts a year, two years or six months. Suppose that the day after the dispute ends, the company decides to close down only part of its operation, keeping 50% of its workers and laying off the other 50%.

In such a case, would this bill protect those workers who do not return to work?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

This situation arises from time to time. Following a long labour dispute or a partial closure, a company rehires half of its workers, and the other half are left with nothing to fall back on. Workers in the latter group are not entitled to employment insurance benefits.

In answer to the member's question, I would say that, yes, such workers would benefit from this bill and would have some recourse under the proposed measure. They would be entitled to employment insurance benefits based on the new qualifying period, the 52 weeks preceding the labour dispute or lockout.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member speaking about this particular incident, but I would ask why he would go against a measure that would help about 190,000 long-tenured workers who would receive between 5 to 20 additional weeks of benefits? Why would he be against a measure like that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a situation that has happened in Quebec and in other companies that have experienced long labour disputes or strikes.

With regard to the bill the government introduced in this House and to which my colleague is referring, we noted and we have stated that it does not address the situation currently facing workers in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, many of whom have lost their jobs, as well as seasonal workers.

This bill does not meet all of the demands made by Quebeckers. We find this bill unfair to other workers, because it establishes a new category—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately, the time allowed for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member has no valid reason for taking that position.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment insurance program and examine the particular issue of the calculation of the qualifying period for benefits during labour disputes, as proposed in this bill.

I think it is important to note, first, that EI is an insurance-based program. It is supported by premiums paid by both workers and employers. It is important to remember that. Its purpose is to provide benefits to workers when they are unable to work because they are temporarily unemployed through no fault of their own, are sick or ill, pregnant, caring for a newborn or adopted child or providing care or support to a gravely ill family member. For one to be eligible for these benefits, a qualifying period must be established.

Let me examine how this works.

A qualifying period is the length of time for which a claimant must accumulate sufficient hours of insurable employment to establish a claim for benefits. This period is generally 52 weeks, or one year, preceding the commencement of the claim. In some circumstances, it can be shorter, specifically when there is a prior claim.

The current provisions do, however, allow for the extension of the qualifying period to up to 104 weeks, or two years. This provision is to cover individuals who are unable to work because of illness or quarantine. It does not, however, cover labour dispute situations, and there are several good reasons why that is so.

One very important reason is that the EI program should remain neutral during a labour dispute.

Bill C-395 would be contrary to this fundamental principle.

[An hon. member]

I learned something.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member learned something.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the EI system is an insurance-based system, supported by both employers and workers who pay premiums. We have to be careful about compromising the neutrality of the EI program in any labour dispute. Allowing the provision of benefits to workers, paid for in part by employers, during a labour dispute would disrupt the system's balanced treatment, tilting the system in favour of workers in a situation where they are negotiating with management. This would be a very awkward situation. The negotiating position of union workers would be unfairly improved at the cost of employers, who pay 58% of the EI premiums.

Another important reason for not extending indefinitely the qualifying period during labour disputes, as proposed in this bill, is that it would create inconsistencies compared to the limited time extension for those who are sick or quarantined.

Bill C-395 would also deviate from the EI system's basic insurance principle that there must be a reasonable proximity of timing and a fair value balance between the payment of the premiums and the disbursement of the benefits.

An indefinite qualifying period would make a mockery of this principle and would do so for workers who are not technically unemployed and who are available for work but are simply in a labour dispute and, therefore, not attending work.

The point about being available for work must be remembered.

It must also be remembered that under the current Employment Insurance Act, workers are able to accept other employment during the labour dispute so they can accumulate the required number of hours needed to establish an EI claim.

With the variable interest requirement, the number of insurable hours needed to qualify for regular benefits varies between 420 hours and 700 hours, depending on the unemployment rate in the region where the individual lives.

When changes are made to EI, especially in this rather turbulent economic period, it is essential that they be based on sound analysis of evidence. Their effects on the labour market, the costs that they would incur and the effects they would have on the system as a whole must be measured.

When we look at the need to extend the length of a qualifying period during labour disputes, we say in the vast majority of cases that doing so would not affect workers qualifying for EI benefits in any event if the firm should close shortly after the resolution of a dispute.

In the last six years, the average duration of a strike and a firm's closure was 110 days. For lockouts, it was 116 days. Together, they averaged about 16 weeks. In both cases, the duration was well below the current 52-week qualifying period. As well, in less than 4% of closures did strikes or lockouts last more than 52 weeks.

We also have no clear understanding of this bill's financial implications, though we know there would be, indeed, financial implications. Much research analysis would need to be done to determine its costs.

It was upon just such research and careful analysis that our government based Canada's economic action plan. As a result, Canadians are now benefiting from a host of measures.

We have improved the EI program by providing nationally an extra five weeks of EI regular benefits in areas of high unemployment.

The maximum duration of benefits has been extended from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. We have made it easier for employers to participate in work-sharing agreements. In fact, there are presently over 5,800 active work-sharing agreements that are helping to protect the jobs of almost 167,000 Canadians. We have helped young people get certified in skilled trades and have helped older workers make the transition to new careers.

Through our economic action plan, our Conservative government has increased funding for skills training under the existing labour market agreements with the provinces and territories. This additional investment will help EI clients receive the skills training needed in a scaled-down economy. With our strategic training and transition fund, we are assisting individuals who are ineligible for employment insurance to benefit from training and other support measures.

Just recently the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced a temporary measure to support long-tenured workers who have lost jobs because of the recent downturn. Long-tenured workers are people who have worked, paid EI premiums for a significant period of time, and have made limited use of the program. This new measure will provide between 5 and 20 weeks of additional benefits to long-tenured workers, depending on how long they have been working and paying EI premiums.

We made improvements to the program before our economic action plan. Through the establishment of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, we are improving the management and governance of the EI account. We took that step to ensure that EI premiums paid by hard-working Canadians do not go into general revenues and are not available for future governments to use on their pet political projects or to fudge deficit numbers, like the previous Liberal governments did.

Our government's action on that issue is a good thing for working Canadians. We also froze the EI premiums for this year, 2009 and for next year, 2010. Keeping the EI premium at this level, its lowest in almost a quarter century in 2009 and 2010, rather than allowing it to rise to the break-even level, will achieve a projected combined economic stimulus of $10.5 billion just when it is needed most.

This measure therefore keeps premium rates lower than they would otherwise be. From an employer perspective, the measure provides an incentive to create and retain jobs. At the same time, it leaves more earnings in the hands of employees which impacts on consumer spending.

Under the economic action plan, we introduced career transition assistance. This initiative extends EI benefits to a maximum of two years for long-tenured workers participating in longer training. Up to three months of benefits following the completion of training could be available so that the claimant would have more time to search for re-employment.

Overall, with the measures that we have taken, the EI program is meeting the needs of Canadians. For this reason and the points I have outlined, I cannot support Bill C-395.

I can say, however, that this government will bear in mind the issue raised in this bill and continue to be informed in our policy decisions by close monitoring of the EI program. One must take all of this in the context of what we have already done and what we are proposing to do.

We are looking after those Canadians who need our help most, those who have been affected and hardest hit, those who have contributed to the system by working for many years, contributing premiums and not utilizing the system, and who unfortunately now find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. Those are the people we are helping.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak tonight to Bill C-395, which is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act addressing eligibility as a result of a labour dispute.

This country has been and is going through a major economic crisis. While there is talk of a rebounding economy, the reality is that it is a jobless recovery. The reality is that there are still people who are continuing to lose their jobs.

We know that at this moment there are over 700,000 Canadians receiving employment insurance, with over 1.5 million unemployed, so we can do the math in terms of who is receiving employment insurance at this point and who is not able to receive it.

Inaccessibility of course has been a major issue throughout this crisis. Many Canadians have not been able to access employment insurance at all, and many others of course have now exhausted their benefits and are not part of the small group that the government has chosen to be the deserving group to receive extensions on their EI benefits. I have no problem with extending it, except that it should be a much broader initiative to cover all of those people who are now in dire straits.

To come back to this bill, we all know that currently the act does not specify what happens after a work stoppage. It is not clear and this is important to clarify. How does the qualifying period impact people who have been on strike for awhile and then are laid off shortly after going back to work? The act is not very clear in that context. This bill actually clarifies that and certainly ensures that people are not left in the cold.

The qualifying period, as we know, is 52 weeks immediately before the start date of a claim or the period since the start of a previous EI claim, if that claim started during the 52 week period. While that part of it is clear, there is still the issue of what happens to people who find themselves out of work because of a strike. We do have coverage in other ways for other groups, such as sickness, but this is not something that is captured very clearly. This bill aims to clarify what happens to that qualifying period and I welcome that clarification.

Workers should not be penalized because they are out for a week, two weeks, ten weeks or however long it is, for a strike, because they do not have the choice to strike or not to strike. Obviously, if there is a lockout or a strike, the workers are affected very directly.

At the same time, they have not been laid off. None of these workers have actually received a pink slip that says they are no longer employees so that they can go and apply for EI during that process. They cannot. They are deemed to still be employees of that company and they are deemed to be workers receiving benefits and so on until such time as they are no longer employees.

However, if they are laid off through no fault of their own after the dispute is over; that is, shortly thereafter, and sometimes it can happen very soon after, this whole area is not clear as to whether that whole period can qualify them for coverage or not. In many cases, of course, it does not.

This bill takes care of that problem and it extends the qualifying period for the length of the work stoppage. That is a very valuable thing to do and I support that. As I said before, I do not believe that any worker who is either on strike or has been locked out should have to lose financial support.

I know that on the government's side, the hon. members have said that these two things need to be connected because it favours the employee over the employer and this is a problem that causes inconsistencies and conflicts.

I do not see that at all because whether or not there is a strike or a lockout, it is not always very clear. It should not affect the workers. As I said, the workers have not been laid off. They have not received layoff slips. The workers are still employees of the company. Therefore, they should be looked after. A lockout or strike should not impact whether workers qualify for EI if they are laid off after the work stoppage comes to an end.

The EI Act is quite convoluted and complex in many ways as it has been amended over the years in many different ways. If there is a work stoppage during an EI claim, it could be contentious if it is not specifically described in the act.

As I said, the act can be very difficult to interpret and it has a lot of different aspects. This is an area which to some degree has been left open and needs to be clarified. This is the right way to do it so that we do not continue to have the same kinds of tensions that exist now. The bill makes the process simpler and clearly defines how a claim can proceed if the worker was part of a work stoppage in the 52-week period prior to being laid off.

If people lost their jobs because of a long labour dispute, it prevented them from accumulating the required hours in the 52 preceding weeks. This is the impact of the current situation. This bill would make them eligible for EI, which makes a difference. It allows people to receive what is their right, in essence.

I do not see this as giving the workers an advantage over the company, as the hon. member on the government side said. The workers and the company both contribute to EI. I do not think people would stay on strike longer simply because they know that period is still covered. I do not believe that would be a defining factor in any way whatsoever. Therefore, I do not see that it gives a benefit to one over the other.

With this bill, benefits can be calculated based on the weeks worked prior to the labour dispute despite the length of the dispute. In my view, this tells workers that they are still employees of the company and during a lockout or labour dispute they will not be penalized with respect to employment insurance should they lose their jobs shortly after going back to work.

The hon. member across the way said that this would give advantage to the workers. However, the employer may also choose to let people go once they return to work for reasons that are not necessarily legitimate in order to punish or cut back the labour force. One could go in that direction as well and argue the other side. I do not believe that either one should be argued.

For me, quite frankly, the bottom line is whether the workers are still employees of a company, yes or no. If they are still employees of the company and they are not working because of a situation over which they have no control, then they should be able to continue to qualify for EI benefits for that period if they lose their jobs shortly after they go back to work.

I will be supporting this bill. It is going in the right direction. I would like members of the House to look at it from that perspective and support it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Berthier—Maskinongé on introducing Bill C-395, which amends the Employment Insurance Act to change the way in which the qualifying period is calculated in the case of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.

I do not claim to be an expert on employment insurance, but the qualifying period is the period of time during which a person normally worked, for example, from October last year to October this year. The person worked the required number of hours to qualify for employment insurance during this 52-week period. If this person is laid off, he is ordinarily entitled to employment insurance for a certain number of weeks, depending on the region he comes from.

This bill refers to a strike or lockout occurring during the qualifying period, which would prevent the person from working. If the strike or lockout lasts 52 weeks, the person will not have paid EI premiums during that time and therefore will not qualify for extended EI benefits.

It is interesting to listen to what the parliamentary secretary from Souris—Moose Mountain said. He said that the Bloc Québécois bill did not make sense. Workers contribute to an employment insurance program in order to be entitled to employment insurance if there is a shortage of work. That is what the parliamentary secretary said.

In this case, I do not understand where the $57 billion stolen from the EI fund went. Workers paid EI premiums that wound up in the general fund and were used to pay down the debt. The parliamentary secretary says that we can pay down the debt. The Liberals and the Conservatives have been saying that for years. We can pay down the debt with that money, but we cannot help workers who have lost their jobs. The parliamentary secretary said that it would not be fair to the employer, who also pays into the plan, if an employee who decided to go on strike were then entitled to employment insurance.

The speech earlier by the parliamentary secretary from Souris—Moose Mountain was more in defence of the employer. However, is the employee who has given 20 or 30 years of service to the company not entitled to some help?

We are not saying that employment insurance should be paid because of a strike or a lockout. There is a strike fund for that. We are saying that during a dispute, time goes by and the market changes. The company says, for example, that it can no longer keep 100% of its workforce because of the economic crisis and it will keep only 75%. Why should the other 25% have to go on social assistance? The company paid its premiums but so did the employee. The employee also paid premiums for 25 or 30 years. Why should he be denied employment insurance? He should not be entitled to EI because of the strike or the lockout, but because the company no longer requires his services. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not a sin to help workers. It seems that previous and current governments think it is a sin to give money to workers.

There is already a window in the legislation that would give someone on strike or locked out the chance to get EI. I will explain.

Take the example of someone who works for a company and ends up on strike or locked out. The company decides to hire scabs and resumes 85% of its production. All the employees who are locked out or on strike can stop using their strike fund and go on EI. The Act is clear: if 85% of production is resumed, the employee is entitled to employment insurance despite the strike or lockout. It is in the Act.

I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head as if to say it does not make sense to give employment insurance to workers. That must be what he is thinking. I cannot really say what he is thinking. The way he is shaking his head is certainly not a sign that this makes sense. It is as though it does not make sense to him. The parliamentary secretary is here, he is listening closely and he has had his say.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary. He said that the premiums are paid by workers and by companies for when people lose their jobs, and he went on and on. I agree with him. If I had had a chance to ask him a question, I would have asked him why the government took all those premiums and put the money into the consolidated revenue fund and used it to pay the debt, continuing what the Liberals did. The Liberals started it, but the Conservative members have been in power since 2006 and they did it too. The Conservatives did it and they will not disagree with me. They have big smiles on their faces right now. They put a new organization in place and said that they would move $2 billion of the $57 billion into it and they would legalize what the Liberals had done. They said that they would keep it. They would put it in the consolidated revenue fund and that would be done and over with.

However, the worker has paid into employment insurance for 20 or 25 years. It is not a sin if there is a conflict or a lockout or strike, and when it is all over, the worker either returns to work or collects employment insurance. If there is a shortage of work and the employer terminates a worker because there is not enough production to keep everybody employed, it is not a sin.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, said that money belongs to them. It is theirs. Why would the government stop a person from getting that money? Why would the government say it is a sin to get money from employment insurance, but the person is allowed to go on welfare? That is where the person will have to go. Why hurt the person's family? It is not a sin to go on strike or to be locked out. It is not a sin if that happens. If the mechanisms are in place through the union, people have the right to do that and to be in the union. The mechanisms are in place to try to have some negotiation. If a contract cannot be negotiated, the mechanisms are in place to try to find a contract at the end of the day. It is not unbalanced, because the employees have the right to go on strike and the employer has the right to lock them out. Both have the same power. I have never heard of a government yet, federal or provincial, go down on any company that has a lock out.

It is like saying it is a sin to go on strike; however, a lockout means that the company is doing something good.

The amount of money in the employment insurance fund—even though they have taken all of it—is still recorded in the banking documents. Although they took it, it is still borrowed money. Besides the $57 billion, no one ever talks about the interest owing on that amount, because, according to the law, they owe interest on that money.

That is why I am saying that this bill is a good bill that will help workers if they lose their jobs. They should not be punished when they go on strike or are locked out. That is in the legislation. Striking is not illegal. Having a lockout is not illegal. If there had never been any strikes or lockouts in Canada, people would still be making 50¢ an hour, because no one pooled their money together. That is part of the act. It is that part that some want to amend, but many other amendments could also help people, such as eliminating the two-week waiting period. There is also the issue of 360 hours, among others. We must help workers because, as it stands, only 50% or even less than 50% of workers qualify for employment insurance. In Canada, people receive only 55% of EI benefits, while in France, that proportion is 80%. My Bloc Québécois colleague was there with me and heard when I asked the question.

We can only hope that the government will change its mind on this matter and support this good bill, which is what the NDP will be doing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavut—Eeyou.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us call it Nunavik instead of Nunavut. Nunavut is too far away for me.

I would like to respond to the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who earlier claimed that he would not support such a measure before the costs were determined. I think that is the problem, because before costs can be calculated, income will have to be calculated. We are talking about workers who have 35, 40 or, in certain cases, 43 years of service, and who have never once filed a claim for employment insurance or unemployment insurance, as it used to be, and certainly not for 52 weeks of EI. The current legislation does not even make it possible to claim 52 weeks. We are nowhere near where we should be.

I am talking about a town that I know very well, that was founded in 1966. It was a single industry town. In 2005, it had a population of 3,500. Today, the population is 2,300. All the young couples have left the community because there were no more jobs for them.

We must not forget that because of the changing economy and changing labour laws, EI legislation must also be overhauled as quickly as possible, otherwise the effects of the current crisis will be painful and unfair for most workers in this country, except those in Ontario, of course.

The parliamentary secretary asked my colleague just now why we are not in favour of the government's reform. It is because it does not affect Quebec's forestry workers at all. The legislation only helps Ontario auto workers. These measures are in addition to the $10 billion that the government has already given to the auto industry in Ontario and that will do absolutely nothing for Quebec workers. To look at him you would say that the parliamentary secretary is a good man, but he is a bean counter. He does not think about the well-being of this country's workers.

This bill will quickly address an obvious problem brought to the forefront by this crisis. The effects of this crisis have been felt suddenly, as in the case of Lebel-sur-Quévillon, my riding, where 425 workers were locked out for 37 months before they were fired. The act states that an employee who is locked out or on strike has not severed the employee-employer relationship. Consequently, he is not entitled to employment insurance benefits. For that reason we are saying that we must not do this to workers who have worked honestly for so long. It would be the same thing even if they had only worked for five years. However, most of these workers, whom I first met in 1966 or in 1967, were just leaving the plant, on December 19, 2008, one week before Christmas. Imagine someone who has been locked out for 37 months and then, on December 19, finds out that the plant is closing.

I will probably be told that the company has the right to manage its affairs. No, that is an abuse of power and a step taken, during a crisis, to save money on salaries while restructuring. Furthermore, the $6.5 million specified in their collective agreement has not yet been paid. This company is still trying to save money at the expense of its employees and its overdue municipal taxes are still outstanding.

EI reform is necessary because of everything that has been done by companies and white-collar criminals. In fact, their actions make them no better than the white-collar criminals.

Worker protection legislation must evolve with a country's economic situation. All legislation must ensure justice for all segments of the population. It must respect not only the economic system but also the people.

For three years, the workers had no ties to an employer, ties that would establish a qualifying period. The company was able to use three years worth of salaries in its attempt to restructure, and did so deliberately, depriving the employees of their eligibility for employment insurance, after 25, 30, 35 or even 42 years of uninterrupted service for the same company. This situation was made obvious only because the employees kept demonstrating and maintaining their very reasonable claims, I should say. They made a number of concessions to their employer in the hopes of keeping the plant open.

Our bill is simple. We are proposing eliminating the duration of a labour dispute from the qualifying period. This does not apply only in Quebec or Lebel-sur-Quévillon, but it applies to the entire country. I see my colleagues from the Maritime provinces, who are no strangers to the problems of unemployment and lack of jobs. In that part of the country, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, work is often seasonal.

Workers who lose their jobs when their employers go out of business following a lockout or strike would have their benefits calculated based on the 52-week period preceding the dispute, as though they had been laid off the day the employer locked them out or they voted to strike. It would be calculated from that point on.

This is a simple way to correct what we feel is a simple oversight in the act with respect to a very rare but deeply unjust problem.

If the member for Souris—Moose Mountain still has concerns, here are some statistics from Quebec's ministry of labour. In Quebec, from 1995 to 2004, there were 966 disputes, of which 39 lasted a very long time and 8 lasted over 721 days. The Lebel-sur-Quévillon dispute lasted 1,129 days. All of the Domtar jobs were lost; 565 people were laid off. That is the equivalent of 55,000 people losing their jobs in Montreal. Imagine the impact of that closure on a small, single-industry town.

In 2005, the population of Quévillon was 3,500. Now there are only 2,300 people to support a modern infrastructure that was very attractive. Imagine the effort that went into starting the business up again after nearly all of the young workers left town, except for those in high-level positions. Now there is a shortage of skilled workers, which has a very negative impact on efforts to get the business going again.

If only both levels of government had cooperated to help the Lebel-sur-Quévillon workers as much as they helped Ontario's auto sector, then the town would be in very good shape now. It is important to keep people in these towns. History has shown that this can be done at a relatively low cost.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Minister of National Defence a question about the government's decision to challenge the authority of the Military Police Complaints Commission tribunal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence responded to my question, and at one point he said that the allegations were completely ridiculous and that I should be ashamed of myself.

The Military Police Complaints Commission was established in 1999. I was in the House of Commons when that legislation came through. Prior to coming into politics, I was a member of the Quebec Police Commission. Then when the whole system was hauled through an innovative legislation adopted by the Quebec government in 1989, which came into effect in 1990, I was deputy commissioner for police ethics. I actually presided over public complaints into allegations of alleged police misconduct.

I know what it means for a commission to have a mandate. I know what the federal court stipulated when the government challenged the mandate of the commission. The federal court very clearly said that the commission's mandate was restricted to military police and their investigations.

The complaints are that members of the military police transferred Afghan prisoners to Afghan authorities, knowing that they would be subject or that there was a reasonable possibility of them being subject to torture. To protect the credibility of our military, of our wonderful, brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces, we need to have independent governance when complaints come through. In order for the commission to properly do its work to determine whether the military police knowingly transferred Afghan prisoners to torture, it needs to hear what the military police would have known about whether there was torture taking place in the prisons.

A Canadian diplomat, Richard Colvin, wants to testify as to what he knows and the government has issued an order that he is not to testify. It has issued an order under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Everyone knows that section has to do with terrorists. I am not sure if the parliamentary secretary was here when that legislation was adopted, the Anti-terrorism Act, in 2001, but I was here. It was not adopted in order to prohibit government public servants from testifying to what they know in an independent tribunal's public inquiry into serious allegations.

If the commission cannot do its work properly, then whatever its conclusion is has no validity, has no credibility and therefore the allegations, as serious as they are, remain. That is one of the reasons why Quebec brought in an independent system with real authority.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another chance to clarify the record on this particular issue.

I would like to begin by reminding my hon. colleague that the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that prisoners are treated and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law. In fact, a board of inquiry was convened by the Canadian Forces to investigate the treatment and processing of persons detained by the CF in April 2006, as well as to conduct a detailed examination of the orders, directives and procedures governing prisoner treatment at the time.

The board concluded that Canadian Forces members, without exception, treated prisoners professionally and humanely, and that all actions taken by CF members in dealing with prisoners complied with direction in place at the time of capture and were consistently above reproach.

The board did identify a number of areas for improvement and over the course of the board's deliberations, the majority of these shortcomings were rectified through the Canadian Forces' regular review of operations. With respect to the MPCC, the Government of Canada remains committed to cooperating with the commission in the conduct of its investigations to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the mandate given the MPCC by the National Defence Act.

As the MPCC itself has confirmed, the Department of National Defence has provided the commission with access to hundreds of documents and produced dozens of witnesses with respect to the MPCC matters relating to prisoners. However, it is important to remember that there is a mandatory obligation for public officials and participants to take appropriate steps under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act to protect information that is potentially sensitive or injurious within the meaning of section 38 of the act.

The inadvertent release of this type of information in the MPCC's proceedings is a serious matter and could endanger the lives of civilians and members of the Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan. The Government of Canada, therefore, continues to take reasonable precautions to prevent this from happening. Since February 2008 the Government of Canada has sought dialogue with the MPCC to the most effective means of dealing with this issue, initially in relation to the investigation of the complaints and later in advance of the commencement of the hearings.

With respect to individual witnesses, none have been prohibited from testifying. The MPCC list of witnesses was compiled before the Federal Court ruled in favour of the government's application to limit the scope of its investigation to matters of policing. Witnesses can testify as long as the MPCC establishes that the testimony is relevant. Government officials are required by law to protect sensitive information relating to international relations, national defence or national security, whether in written or oral form.

There are some matters that witnesses will not be able to speak to if they do appear because they are subject to legal protection or because their disclosure may have an adverse effect on national security or other matters contemplated under the Canada Evidence Act. Department of Justice lawyers continue to be prepared to work with the MPCC to find a way to proceed with the upcoming public interest hearing while protecting sensitive information.

I can assure my hon. colleagues that the Government of Canada will continue to cooperate with the MPCC in the conduct of its investigations to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the mandate given to the MPCC by the National Defence Act and, as explained, by the Federal Court of Canada.

We will continue, as we have done from the beginning, to operate under the rule of law. Perhaps that may not satisfy my hon. colleague, which would surprise me, given that she is a lawyer. However, that is how we are operating and we will continue to do that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not appreciate the kind of snide snipes and comments that this parliamentary secretary makes. We can have a disagreement on the interpretation of the law without that member calling into question my integrity, honesty, competence and ability.

I sat on public inquiries into serious complaints. In some cases, there were people who had been condemned for a murder and were sentenced to life in prison. There were allegations that the police had not done their work.

I stipulate that if the government was really interested in protecting the honour, integrity and credibility of our brave men and women who serve in the armed forces, including in the military police, it would not be trying to stymie witnesses through threats and the misuse of legislation like article 38 of the anti-terrorism bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I will continue to disagree. She will not believe me, but maybe she will believe the hon. Mr. Justice Harrington. This was part of his decision. He said:

Although the Attorney General's position may be somewhat overstated, and although the detention of insurgents in Afghanistan and their subsequent release to the Afghan authorities may possibly be described as policing duties or functions which were performed by members of the Military Police in Afghanistan as pertaining to the arrest or custody of persons, those duties or functions, policing or not, relate to military operations that resulted from established military custom or practice and, therefore, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.

He further stated:

However, as the National Defence Act makes clear, the Commission is limited to considering the conduct of members of the Military Police in the performance of their policing duties or functions. It has no jurisdiction to inquire into the conduct of the military at large, much less the conduct of persons who are not members of the military.

We are conducting this in accordance with the rule of law and in the best interests of Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House of Commons about the following situation. in the early 1990s, the fisheries industry was in crisis in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. At that time, the Liberals found nothing better to do than to cut employment insurance, thus abandoning workers. Today they are trying to pass themselves off as the champions of employment insurance. My question was this: Will the government show more respect for unemployed workers than the LIberals did?

The House has voted in favour of changes to employment insurance. When will the Conservatives abolish the waiting period and reduce eligibility to 360 hours as the NDP has called for?

The reason I put the question like that is that we are going through an economic crisis right now. We agree on that even though, during the 2008 election, the Conservative government refused to acknowledge that there was an economic crisis. Now, changes are being made to employment insurance—a few changes anyway. The minister answered my question about the 360-hour eligibility criteria and eliminating the waiting period by saying that they had added five weeks at the end. As though five weeks was somehow better than the two-week waiting period. We have been hearing that from the Conservative government in the House of Commons for a long time now.

First, the difference is that the employee who works and loses his job faces a qualifying period, what some call the two-week waiting period. I do not call it the two-week waiting period. I do not agree with that expression. It is two weeks of punishment because when someone loses their job, they are not entitled to the first two weeks of employment insurance. It is not a two-week waiting period. People have to wait 28 days before getting employment insurance benefits. It is two weeks of punishment with no income. In addition to that punishment, they end up with 55% of their salary. For example, if they earn $700 a week, they receive only 55% of $700. If the person earns minimum wage, let us say $8 an hour, they receive $4 and change, which is less than social assistance. The punishment is twofold.

As for the five weeks added at the end, that does not help people any more than the two weeks, because people who have lost their jobs have to wait 28 days before they receive EI and, in addition, they lose the first two weeks. They get a cheque for one week. That is the difference. That is why we called on the government to act and why, in the spring, a majority of members adopted our motion in the House of Commons to change the waiting period. The motion concerning the 360-hour eligibility criterion was adopted by the majority. Here again, what was behind this motion was the fact that less than 50% of workers in Canada are eligible for EI.

I cannot wait to hear what the parliamentary secretary will say, because earlier, he said that employees pay a premium so that they will have income when they lose their job. The current formula prevents workers from qualifying for EI. The formula must change so that workers can supposedly receive benefits. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, this program belongs to workers, who need to be given the chance to qualify for benefits. At this point, we are really talking about people who have lost their jobs, period. If someone has lost his job, is he entitled to employment insurance? Because of the number of hours, this person does not qualify.

After the government's response, I will talk about the economic crisis and what happened in the fishery in the 1990s.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting that the member for Acadie—Bathurst asked a question in question period about the fishing industry but it had nothing to do with that, and in the four minutes allocated to him proceeded to deal with another matter.

The member pretends to be a helper for those who are unemployed. However, when workers in our manufacturing industry were laid off, where was the NDP when we put measures forward to help them? Those members voted against that provision. They voted against all the provisions in the budget and the economic action plan whether they were beneficial to workers or not. One has to wonder about that.

Where was the NDP when the auto sector collapsed and jobs disappeared? Where was the NDP with respect to the forestry industry? They voted against the actions we took in the economic action plan.

Those members are not here to help. For reasons of their own, they have chosen not to be concerned about those who are unemployed. They are only concerned about their own employment.

The member is asking questions tonight about other programs under EI. Why did he not support the additional five weeks of benefits that we put across nationally? What was wrong with that? Why was he not prepared to help?

Billions of dollars were in the budget for skills training and upgrading to ensure people received the skills they needed for new jobs. Where was the member and his party at that time? Why would they oppose something like that?

Why did the member not support our work sharing program that would help 168,000 people maintain their jobs? The member opposed the billions of dollars of assistance that we put forward to help thousands of people in one fashion or another. The member opposed each and every one of them.

Where was he when we froze EI premiums so that employees and employers would not need to pay more? Where was that particular member and his party? In fact, NDP members said that they would not even bother reading how the measures would help unemployed workers. They did not even bother to see from a positive perspective what was in the action plan. They did not care how much was being spent or how many people would be helped by that package. They said that they would vote against it.

How can the member, in good conscience, stand in the House and say that he is a defender of those who are unemployed and those who need help the most? Our government put those packages together but the NDP did not support us.

They came up with irresponsible provisions, like the 45 day work year. They would have people work for 45 days in a year and then get benefits. How would that help those in the auto industry or the forestry industry who have worked for many years, paid premiums for many years but have never collected benefits? That is morally irresponsible because it would allow billions of dollars to be charged to the EI account. The member does not take that into consideration.

The NDP did not support us in those measures and did not even bother to read our plan.

We have some other programs that we want to put in place that will cost billions of dollars. Is it responsible to oppose all of the programs that we put in place that most Canadians want? Is it being responsible to ignore all of that? Is it being responsible to ask us to support something the NDP want? That is irresponsible and certainly not affordable given everything we have put into the system.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked where I was. I was here voting against those provisions because there was not enough for the working people. It is not a shame to have people working 45 days, which is the figure he used. The government says that if people work 360 hours they want to be on EI for a year. However, they do not go on EI for a year. Where was the government when we told it that less than 50% of people who lose their jobs get employment insurance?

We did not agree with the government's formula. We want to bring it down and have another election in the hope that Canadians will put in a party that will help the working people in this country. We are not ashamed of that. This country was built by men and women who get up in the morning, take their lunch pail and go to work. When they lose their job, the whole family suffers. Five weeks was not enough.

Where was the government when we asked it to get rid of the two week waiting period? The government refused. Where was that government member at that time?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says that he is not ashamed of voting no to all our proposals, but he and his party should be ashamed for voting against proposals that would help 165,000 people keep their jobs. They voted against that for some ideological reason. They voted against billions of dollars going into extended training and skills upgrading. He should be ashamed of voting against that.

We have helped about 190,000 people in one fashion or another to maintain their jobs so they can buy food for their families and keep their homes, but the member voted against that.

How can he stand up in good conscience and say that he is not ashamed of voting against proposals that would help hard-working Canadians who have paid into the system, who have worked hard and now find themselves in an unfortunate situation? Why would the member turn his back on those particular workers by voting against our proposals and then say that he is not ashamed of it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)