Ed Komarnicki

[Foreign Takeovers, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the principle of EI involves one of strict impartiality in all labour disputes. The system is designed to remain neutral and to not interfere in labour disputes, and that will be the case in this case as well.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to Bill C-481, tabled in this House by my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles, with some background with respect to the government's position on this bill.

The bill proposes to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code. It would, in effect, put a stop to allowing mandatory retirement within the federally regulated private sector.

I commend my hon. colleague for having reintroduced this bill, which was first introduced in this House last November.

The matter of whether we should continue to have mandatory retirement in the federally regulated private sector is something that should be explored. It is timely. Therefore, this matter can be debated and must be debated here in Parliament. Mandatory retirement, as an issue, is taking on more importance for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that our population is aging and our birthrate is in decline.

My view, and the position of the Government of Canada, is that there is a lot of merit in pursuing what is being proposed in Bill C-481. Provided that some additional amendments are made, the government would be prepared to support this bill.

I will identify those necessary amendments in a moment but first I would like to take a few moments to talk about why the provisions in this bill are important. The worker's right to choose is one of them.

Forcing someone to retire because of age is a form of discrimination. Unless there are compelling reasons, such as health and safety concerns, workers should have the right to choose when they retire. It should be a choice based on lifestyle and financial and health circumstances. It should not be decided for someone because they have reached a defined age.

Today, approximately 10% of Canada's population continues to work after age 65. The average age of retirement in Canada is 62. Given these facts, it is worth noting that mandatory retirement policies in the federally regulated private sector currently affect very few employees in practice. How few are affected by the mandatory retirement? Less than 2% of the federally regulated employers. Among large employers with 100 employees or more, about 10% have a mandatory retirement policy. That is a major drop from about 25% in the late 1990s. Within the federal public service, the practice of mandatory retirement ended in 1986. There has been consistent progress.

Turning to my next point, Bill C-481 is important as it represents consistent progress toward current employment practices. By eliminating blanket exemptions and exceptions for mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction, we would help align federal rules so that they are consistent with the provincial and territorial human rights legislation.

Having said this, some modest amendments are necessary before the government can give full support to this bill. Specifically, we must consider what the repeal of paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act would entail. It would remove the ability of the Government of Canada to enact regulations that could set out maximum age requirements for those groups for whom specific age requirements are necessary. That regulation-making power is important, so it needs to be maintained.

There is a regulation enacted under the authority of paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act that supports the mandatory retirement policy currently in place for the Canadian Forces. This poses a concern to the government in Bill C-481, in its current form.

Repeal of this paragraph would pose significant challenges to the operational capability of the Canadian Forces. It also could have an impact on their ability to contain costs and to manage military personnel effectively and efficiently.

To maintain an effective and ready force, the Canadian Forces must recruit from within its ranks. It requires a continuous flow of personnel to ensure appropriate experience and expertise throughout the ranks. The longer members serve, the more wear and tear they will incur due to the physical and psychological demands of military service and the greater the risk will be of individual performance failures with consequences for mission success and the health and safety of others.

For these reasons, the Canadian Forces seeks to maintain its existing mandatory retirement policy. Therefore, amendments are needed to safeguard the government's ability to effectively manage the Canadian Forces.

There are other areas, such as interprovincial and international transportation activities where there may be circumstances that warrant a mandatory policy.

Moreover, departments whose mandates cover the affected stakeholder group, for example, Transport Canada with respect to the airline and maritime industry, may wish to propose regulations for consideration to allow mandatory retirement policies for those industries as long as they are necessary and proportional under the charter.

With respect to severance pay, the bill also proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to remove the provision that denies employees severance pay upon involuntary termination if they are eligible for pension benefits, whether public or private. Age should not be a determinant of eligibility for severance pay. All workers should be eligible for severance pay when they are involuntarily terminated. For this reason, I support repealing this provision as proposed in the bill. Further, an adjustment period is required.

We also propose that a provision be added to Bill C-481 so that there is a transition period. This is important. It would help unions and employers make adjustments to adapt to the changes. It would give them time to review their human resource policies, pensions, benefit plans, and collective agreements to ensure compliance. This is a sensible thing to do. It would ensure a smooth transition.

Abolishing the practice of mandatory retirement within the federal jurisdiction would be consistent with current Government of Canada policies regarding older workers. Canada is facing the challenges of an aging population. It is projected that the proportion of Canadians aged 65 or older will increase from 13% to roughly 25%.

In addition, the ratio of workers to pensioners is expected to shrink from four workers for every retiree to two workers for every retiree. All of this would happen by 2030. Within that period of time, these massive demographic changes will mean added fiscal pressures on Canada's ability to manage increasing health care and pension plan costs. Canada will need to retain its skilled, seasoned workers and make greater use of their talents for longer.

These measures would also benefit women and immigrant workers in Canada, two groups that are more likely to re-enter the workforce or join it later in life than others. By prohibiting this workplace practice, these workers will be able to accrue additional years of service and strengthen their financial security should they wish to continue working beyond the fixed retirement age.

Let me restate the Government of Canada's position on Bill C-481. We would be prepared to support it provided that the following three amendments are adopted. First, the bill should be amended to maintain the regulation-making power in paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Second, the bill should include a transition provision to allow employers and unions to adjust to the changes. Third, the bill should include a coming into force provision.

The proposed approach makes good policy sense. Although in practice it will affect only a very small number of federal jurisdiction private sector employees, it would remove barriers to continue labour market participation for older workers. This approach would also allow the government to retain its regulation-making power with regard to imposing mandatory retirement in exceptional cases for certain industries due to health, safety, and operational reasons and to ensure compliance with international laws and regulations.

With those exceptions, we are prepared to support the bill as proposed by my hon. colleague.

[November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken action. We have renewed the homelessness partnering strategy with $390 million per year over a five year period, for $1.9 billion.

Here is what Geoff Gillard, a member of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, had to say:

We're pleased with and commend the Government of Canada for its active support of the housing first principle through the homelessness partnering initiative, which was a big step for this country in the area of homelessness.

Wellesley Institute's federal housing consultation submission stated:

The federal government's investments in affordable housing and homelessness services are making a positive difference in the lives of many Canadians.... [F]ederal housing and homelessness dollars are helping to build new homes, repair existing homes, provide vital services for people who are homeless or insecurely housed and strengthen successful community-based housing collaborations.

We are taking specific initiatives and specific action to address the issues that the member raised.

[November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of steps and a number of initiatives to ensure that we can address the issue of poverty. We have not just looked at reports or talked about it; we have actually taken concrete steps that have had meaningful results and have had an impact.

Our view is that the best way to fight poverty is to get Canadians working, and our economic action plan is doing just that by helping grow our economy and increasing the number of jobs. In fact ,we have created over 400,000 jobs since July 2009. We have done a number of things such as preserving and protecting jobs by job sharing. Over 250,000 jobs were protected.

We absolutely have made sure that the economy will go forward. We have reduced taxes. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have reduced taxes right across the board. We have ensured that an average Canadian family of four will have $3,000 more in its pockets than it would otherwise have had under the previous government. We have done a number of things in that direction.

We have invested moneys to ensure that people get the skills and training they need so they can get jobs that will be meaningful to them and will help them along.

Every action we have taken has been to help Canadians and their families become independent.

We have introduced an interesting benefit called the working income tax benefit, to make work pay and help low income Canadians over the welfare wall. It helped over 900,000 people in the first year.

I can say that regarding members of the member's party, the Liberal member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had this to say:

I support very much the direction on the WITB. I think improving the working income tax benefit is a very positive thing.

While we were at the human resources committee, the then minister of children and youth, Deb Matthews said:

...I was happy to see in the budget that there are some initiatives that will directly improve the quality of life and the standard of living for kids living in poverty. The increase to the WITB will directly help low-income families. Thank you for that. The housing initiatives are, of course, very helpful. The increase in the CCTB is also appreciated.

That is one initiative that has been particularly helpful.

At the human resources committee, Ken Battle, the president of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, said that the working income tax benefit is “very important in terms of reducing poverty among the working poor, who make up about half of low income Canadians”.

As I have mentioned, we have invested about $4 billion in training to help over 1.2 million Canadians.

We have also increased the amount that families in the two lowest personal income tax brackets can earn before paying taxes.

We have taken a number of initiatives with respect to housing. It is important to ensure that people have a place to stay and a roof over their heads. We have invested $2 billion to repair and build new social housing. We have provided specific amounts for seniors and for persons with disabilities, and specific amounts for first nations and those in the north. These have all been very significant amounts of money. We have close to 9,000 projects completed or under way under the economic action plan.

All of these are steps to ensure that there is more funding.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the member was so easily convinced by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, but I can say just as a comment that she may be confusing the fact that a person making a lot of noise is actually accomplishing something. The member for Wascana certainly is not short of bluster or rhetoric, but during the 13 long, Liberal years, I do not recall the member not approving any application for a foreign takeover. In fact, since 1985, I do not recall one. I wonder what she might have done with the Liberal rubber stamp.

[Employment Insurance, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I will. The Liberal-Bloc Québecois-NDP coalition EI plans would cost Canadians $7 billion per year. It would permanently increase EI premiums by a whopping 35%. The coalition EI plan would cost billions of dollars, result in a massive permanent increase in EI premiums, kill jobs and harm our economic recovery.

Our Conservative government will continue to stand up for hard-working Canadians and job-creating small businesses and continue to fight against these costly and irresponsible bills.

[Canadian Council on Learning, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to having the most educated and the most skilled workforce. It is vital to our economic recovery and success. That is why we have taken unprecedented action through the Canada economic action plan. We have introduced new and improved grant programs. Students do not have to pay back as much. In fact, close to 280,000 students are benefiting from that. Last year, over 140,000 more benefited than under the old Liberal system.

We are looking at our education system in a positive way.

[Canadian Council on Learning, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council on Learning was provided with one-time funding of $85 million in 2004. It has always been clear that this funding would expire after five years. In fact, the funding was extended for one year.

We are committed to value for taxpayer dollars and understand the need for stronger learning and labour market information systems, and that is where the government is proceeding.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Bill C-395 regarding labour disputes and employment insurance qualifications for workers involved in these disputes.

The bill's proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act would change the way the qualifying period is calculated in the case of a work stoppage due to a labour dispute. The qualifying period is the period in which the required number of hours of insurable employment that a worker must have in order to establish a claim for benefits is calculated.

As we know, the number of insurable hours needed to qualify for EI benefits varies, depending upon the unemployment rate of the EI region in which an individual lives. The duration of the EI benefits is also based upon the unemployment rate and the amount of insurable hours a person has accumulated in the qualifying period.Those are important elements.

The crux of the bill is that the qualifying period in which the required number of insurable hours must be worked is generally the 52-week period immediately before the start of a claim. In some instances, however, the qualifying period can be extended up to 104 weeks for claimants who were not employed in insurable employment and not receiving EI because they were ill or quarantined.

The purpose of the bill is to extend the qualifying period so that it equals the duration of a labour dispute, even if this period exceeds the current maximum of 104 weeks for extensions provided due to illness or quarantine. The bill involves itself directly in respect to the length of a labour dispute. Its intention is to allow employees to be eligible for EI benefits if they are laid off after a lengthy labour dispute comes to an end.

The amendment presented by the committee further clarifies the bill ensuring that the time period used to calculate the weekly rate of benefits in the 52-week period prior to the beginning of the labour dispute, presumably the time during which the worker was working.

As we are all aware, both employers and workers pay premiums so that workers may collect benefits if they are unable to work. This may be because a worker is laid off, a worker is sick, pregnant, caring for a newborn or adopted child, or is providing care or support to a gravely ill family member.

The EI program is not meant to be a measure that would interfere in any way with a labour dispute or take or advantage one side of a labour dispute over another.

It is clear that Bill C-395 would go against the principle that the employment insurance system should remain neutral during a labour dispute. If Bill C-395 were passed, this could affect the negotiating position of the parties involved, change incentives and perhaps influence the outcome of a labour dispute. This simply should not be the place of the EI system and my hon. colleagues should, quite frankly, agree with me on this particular point.

To make matters worse, this particular bill's coming into force clause would cause the bill's provision to have effect retroactively, looking and reaching back almost three years to start, and even further back in the case of labour disputes in effect at that time.

These provisions are not wise at all.

I know we sometimes do things in this place, such as seeing the clock at a particular time to expedite things slightly and to make appropriate adjustments but deeming a bill to have come into force three years ago and to make retroactive its provisions even further back in time goes against good common sense. It would be a bad precedent, it would be bad law and, quite frankly, it should not be supported.

What about the cost of the bill? The cost must come from somewhere. Regardless of how one accounts for the money, the cost of the bill would have to come in the form of even higher deficits and higher debt.

I emphasize that we are empathetic of workers who are laid off. I think we all can and we all do and, most certainly, extended labour disputes are not pleasant to endure for anyone involved. However, we need to balance that understanding with practical considerations.

Our government must ensure that careful consideration is given to labour market impacts and costs of changes that are proposed. We must be responsible with our policy, programs and spending. That is the very approach that our government has taken since we came to office and we will continue to do so into the future. We must always be mindful that change does not happen in a vacuum and we must take into account the possible impacts of changes like this.

The legislation proposes that the length of the qualifying period should be extended when a labour dispute occurs. We should view this bill in context. Quite simply, the context is that most labour disputes are relatively short and rarely end in the closure of a firm.

The figures have been stated previously but merit repeating. Between 2003 and 2009, for example, a little more than 1% of the total number of strikes ended in a firm's closure. The average length of the strike that ended in a firm's closure was 110 days. For lockouts, the figure was 116 days. These figures average out to 16 weeks. That leaves plenty of time for employees to qualify for benefits under the current 52-week requirement.

By these comments I do not want to suggest that I or our government is unsympathetic to the plight of the unemployed. It is far from it. It is simply that we need to take account of the facts to inform our decision-making.

I would also add that the incidence of firm closures for those aforementioned labour disputes remain very low. For strikes it was 1.3% and 3.6% for lockouts. Therefore, statistically speaking, we are talking about very rare and limited circumstances. As I said, we empathize with the workers involved in the few longer disputes but we must approach the proposed changes to the system with caution and clear heads.

Current provisions now in effect do allow for the extension of the qualifying period up to 104 weeks in situations where individuals are unable to work for reasons such as quarantine or illness. The provisions exclude labour dispute situations however because the individuals are not prevented from working elsewhere by our laws or by the EI system.

This is an important point. While a labour dispute drags on, the workers involved are not prevented by the EI system from working elsewhere. The idea behind this bill is that these workers are not able to accumulate sufficient hours to qualify for EI if they are laid off or the firm closes after the dispute. However, that is not entirely accurate. In many cases, those workers choose not to seek other employment for reasons of their own. They are not prevented from doing so and, therefore, this must also be taken into account.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-395 would create inconsistencies with this provision by creating an undefined extension to the qualifying period if a labour dispute occurs. That would be problematic. I think the bill is flawed in quite a number of ways and should not be supported.

That is why the government will not be supporting the bill. It is not out of disregard for the unfortunate circumstances of some workers caught up in lengthy disputes but for the integrity of the system and the fairness of its treatment between employers and workers.

Our government has acted responsibly to enhance the employment insurance program. particularly since the economic slowdown. I could go through quite an extensive list, including five extra weeks of EI benefits, work sharing programs, skills upgrading and training provisions, and help for older workers. This bill's sponsors have consistently voted against those responsible improvements and have instead proposed irresponsible, flawed and costly measures in their place.

This bill is no different than their other proposals. It would be costly, run roughshod over the principle of neutrality, which is very important, it would have very narrow effect and it would create inconsistencies that would jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the system. This bill should not become a part of the EI system and therefore I would urge all members of the House not to support it.

[Employment Insurance, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, of course we would take an impartial position with respect to the bill. The government does not interfere in specifics like strike action and capping those days. Both employers and employees contribute to the program. It would be improper for us to involve ourselves in that area.