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.