Finance Committee on June 5th, 2012

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes.

I never intended to call you lazy, and if I did, I apologize, but I don't think I did. What I was saying is that you're spending so much time complaining that you don't have enough time—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

“She”—comments through the chair, okay?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Sorry, Chair.

The members, the NDP in particular—and even the Liberals, to a lesser degree—are complaining so much about not having enough time to go through it, and that's what's eating up their time. It's eating up my time and the time of everybody else, including all the staff who are around here listening to them.

We've heard you complain over and over and over and over and over and over again about how you wish you had more time. Well, the reality is, just go to work. We'll get it done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Well, I think that's a matter of debate, so I will leave it as a matter of debate.

I guess I would just encourage members to argue on the points of the bill, obviously, and I would also remind members.... I know that members want to speak to all divisions and that in particular they want to speak to divisions near the end of the bill. At the rate we're going, we're not going to get to the end of the bill before 11:59 p.m., so I'll just give them some friendly advice. If we could be more laconic in our remarks, it would certainly help the chair get to the end of the bill.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Marston, and then Mr. Caron again.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I always appreciate the common-sense approach you use.

I'll ask the members on the other side if any of you have ever filed an EI claim and had it turned down and had to go through an appeal for yourself, or anybody you know. Because—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

No. I'm asking the individuals—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members' comments through the chair, okay? They can ask the chair questions, but—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Through the chair, my point is that there is commentary here about the effectiveness and the need for change, and about why we would want it to be in another committee. Well, we can only work from the experiences that we've had as individuals.

In my case, I happen to have been in a position where I helped make the appointments for the labour people who are on tribunals, so I have a sense of it. But if you haven't been there, if you haven't seen that in action and the problems that were there for the individuals....

Now, we're concerned that this change is talking.... It's going to have linguistic problems. It's going to have cultural differences for the people. There are not going to be enough people, as Mr. Caron has said before, and that's a serious concern.

But it's the EI definition of suitability of work that's going to generate appeals. That's going to have people who are going to have their applications set aside.... As for the jurisprudence that carries over from one tribunal to the next, from the CPP, the OAS, and the EI, that jurisprudence is going to take an amount of time for people to learn, because it has been condensed down so.

The loss of institutional memory from those people who were a part of these boards and were out there doing the best they could to sort through the EI appeals.... Not all EI appeals are justifiable. I will agree with that, and there's a case to be made that some of them need to be turned down, but it needs somebody with the competencies, the skills, and the history to be able to do that.

Now, we've had people allude to web-based.... Well, when you're unemployed, probably one of the first things you're going to cut is your access to the Internet. Also, are there going to be travel requirements for people? On video conferencing, if places are set up and individual communities have the capacity to do that, it may be something you can do.

I was part of the pre-budget hearings, and I don't recall anybody in the pre-budget hearings calling for these changes. Have we had testimony at this committee calling for these changes? No—because the system has been working in a reasonable degree. Does it need some fine-tuning? I doubt if there's a department in the government that couldn't stand some fine-tuning. We could probably agree on that.

But it needs to be put before the proper committee of the House where the critic areas are covered. Also, if you believe that the time allotted to this offers us a real opportunity to study the implications of the legislated changes in the various areas of this government's activities, I think you're mistaken.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Caron, and then Ms. Glover.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would quickly like to talk about two items. First, let me reiterate the importance of studying this amendment in greater depth, since it is related to Bill C-38 and since there are a great deal of negative effects or aspects that we will not be able to study in depth, including regional realities and local services.

I understand that the intent is to use videoconference and to be able to contact people from afar. There are currently 900 part-time employees who work at the employment insurance boards of referees. There are likely 300 boards of referees, given that there are three employees per board of referees. Let's say that we are now going to have 39 full-time employees. The City of Quebec would offer the service closest to Rimouski, for example, or to the Gaspé, Sept-Îles, or other cities in eastern Quebec. If the services are negotiated or provided out of Quebec City, people won't know if they are dealing with someone who understands the regional realities of a region other than Quebec. Those local services that were provided in all the boards of referees are going to disappear. We think that is a very problematic aspect that should have been looked at in depth.

There is another aspect. We have learned this during our work on the Standing Committee on Finance. This has to do with the difference between meeting with witnesses face to face or through videoconference. I am sorry, but as a member of Parliament, I have seen a big difference between asking questions when the witnesses were in Saskatoon, Toronto, Vancouver or Alaska, and when they were here, on site. The quality of the exchanges we had with people right before us was so much better. Actually, the responses were much more effective, animated and engaging than any of the other responses. And that is not a reflection on their work or their comments, but simply on the medium itself that cannot effectively render the desired message.

Heading in this direction will have an impact on people's lives. A decision like this can potentially alter the quality of their lives significantly. We cannot take this decision lightly. People can appeal a decision before a tribunal or a board of referees.

That is why I deeply regret that this division, not announced and not proposed during the prebudget consultations, as my colleague mentioned, is now included with the 56 divisions in part 4 of this bill. This is very problematic, and let me reiterate my wish to study this division separately, because it deserves to be studied thoroughly and independently, and we will not be able to do so here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Ms. Glover, go ahead, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Marston mentioned something I think is important.

I'd like, through you, Chair, to ask the witnesses to comment on it. He brought up the fact that institutional memory is important, and I agree with him, but in fact under the old system, institutional memory in part-time employees might actually be problematic, and in fact the new system, with full-time employees, might actually enhance institutional memory. That would be my take on it.

I'd like to ask the witnesses to comment on that. I'd also like to give the witnesses an opportunity, if they have heard anything that's important to clarify, to take this opportunity to enlighten the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Foster and Ms. Campbell, welcome to the committee. If you would like to address Ms. Glover's questions, please go ahead.

[Sue Foster, Acting Director General, Policy, Appeals and Quality, Service Canada]

Thank you.

With regard to the expertise of the panel members, it is expected that since they are engaged full time in hearing these appeals, they will become experts on not only the provisions associated with the programs they are hearing appeals on but also on the various different elements, for example, with employment insurance, the various regional differences in how the employment insurance program is designed to respond to those regional variations.

Right now we have part-time panels, who, although they do a wonderful job, are in and out of hearing appeals, depending upon the number of appeals and the location of appeals. There isn't always a constant flow of appeals to keep their knowledge fresh. We actually do annual information sessions. We do many of them each year across the country to make sure our board referee members are up to date with changes in the legislation, policy changes, and emerging jurisprudence. Under the new structure, the members of the panels who will actually hear the EI appeals at the first level will be hired as EI experts at the beginning.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That sounds actually quite beneficial, and really an improvement on what we have right now. It goes contrary to many of the things that were unfortunately said by Monsieur Caron in fact.

Nevertheless, I did want to make sure we gave you an opportunity to speak to those issues. Again, I think Mr. Marston was right, although hopefully that intervention will convince him the institutional memory is actually enhanced by the new system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will see.

I will call clause 223 first.

(Clause 223 agreed to on division)

(On clause 224)

I will ask Monsieur Caron to move his amendment.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

So I propose amendment NDP-43.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You are moving NDP-43. Okay.

The chair has a ruling, as assisted by our wonderful legislative clerks.

Bill C-38 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act by creating a new social security tribunal. The tribunal will hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Old Age Security Act. Tribunal members are selected by means of Governor in Council appointments.

The amendment attempts to specify that where an appeal involves a disability benefit, the member of the tribunal must be a person who is qualified to practise medicine or a prescribed related profession in a province.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766, and I quote:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the criteria of medical competency with regard to tribunal members is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-38 and is therefore inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-43.

(Clause 224 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 225 to 281 inclusive agreed to on division)

I want to thank our officials for being here for that division.

We will then move to division 7, which deals with clauses 282 to 303, consolidation of privacy codes. I have no amendments for this division.

Does anyone wish to speak to this division?

(Clauses 287 to 303 inclusive agreed to)

We'll then move to division 8, dealing with social insurance number cards.

These are clauses 304 to 314, and we'll start with Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to again raise the point that there are many Canadians who will be disadvantaged by not having a physical card with their social insurance number.

I remember, as a kid, when I got my first job and I got my SIN card. I still have the same one today. You take care of it and you look after it. It's an important number that you carry with you, and it's an important piece of identification.

There are many Canadians who still do not have access to the Internet, and not everybody has the literacy or media skills to be able to keep track of this information online.

I think of my own community where there are a number of low-income people who don't have a driver's licence. It's an important piece of information for them. If it's only available online, they may not have access to it.

While I do think it's a great idea to have this information online for those for whom it will make their lives a lot easier, I think there are some Canadians who may fall between the cracks, for the reasons I've just mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

For further discussion, I'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, the SIN card was never supposed to be a form of identification. It was never an identity card, so it doesn't contain any of the security features. Those who apply for jobs or need to produce their SIN numbers aren't required to produce it physically. It's one of these things that has reached its full use, as far as necessity. As such, the government has recognized that it's no longer necessary to issue these cards. We will cease to issue and produce and mail the plastic cards.