Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
It's important to take into account the relationship with the work the person just did, but that's the principle.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Another term that I find arbitrary because there is no definition connected to it is “good employers”.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Absolutely. I've noticed that too.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
What is the definition of a good employer?
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
An employer is considered “good” until proven otherwise. I will go back to my notes to be more specific.
The term “good employer” has never been defined. Unless there are clear indications to the contrary, the employer is presumed to be a good employer, but conditions exist to give guidance on this. If there are serious allegations indicating that an employer is not a good employer, the commission shall conduct fact-finding, and the considerations that may be in play are whether the employer has high turnover, numerous grievances filed, rates of earnings that are much lower than paid elsewhere in the area, dilapidated premises, or general dissatisfaction in the place of work. Determining these facts will result in a decision on a case-by-case basis of whether the employer is or is not a good employer.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I totally agree with you that probably the committee is not the best forum for it, obviously, since you're here, Ms. Ryan—and I appreciate that you've brought a number of your working associates with you here—I want to make the best use of time for the taxpayer so that I can say to people that we're doing our work.
I want to touch upon the point at which Mr. Caron left off. I sat on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations for a period of time. I'm not sure whether I accidentally kicked my whip's dog or what, but I was gifted enough to be on that committee for quite a while.
One of the conversations it would have is that oftentimes regulations are put in place to provide better protections for individuals, so that we have less discretion by....
I have to say, I find our public servants here in Ottawa, and I'm sure right across this great country, Mr. Chair, to be very capable. In fact, I was of the opinion that when you hire someone qualified and you pay them well, you should give them as much discretion as you can, because we want them to be able to apply good judgment, but at that committee regulations were put forward to make sure that there are not inequities inadvertently done by doing one-offs. When you say we're pulling away regulations and are allowing old rules to take their place that aren't as clear, I wonder whether there is more capacity for someone who is not as well trained....
For example, I know that our demographics in the public service are changing and that many people are retiring. Do you feel that there is a greater chance that there could actually be more arbitrary decisions that thus end up being brought to the tribunal?
It's a pretty loaded question.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
There are a series of excellent questions embedded in that question. Let me start with the idea of discretion being provided from regulations.
Essentially what this measure would propose to do is to take text from the regulations that were established in July 2016 and place it in legislation rather than in regulation, to give the greater certainty of line of sight to the will of Parliament to these measures than would be in place via regulation.
I'm speaking from the policy intent. I'm not a lawyer, and I would hesitate to get further into the mechanics or theory, but I would offer this as very much the intent: to align more fully not just with the legislation, but also with the jurisprudence that was established prior to 2013, when this specific text existed in legislation.
That's my response to the first half of your question.
In response to the question of whether there is sufficient knowledge, experience, and so on to adjudicate these cases on a case-by-case basis, essentially I would offer that this jurisprudence has been established over a number of years and that the desire to maintain the line of sight to jurisprudence and give greater certainty to new people as they enter the system and so on is very much our intent. I feel that all appropriate measures are being taken to make sure that new staff are appropriately trained to replace retiring staff.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay.
In a power relationship in which someone is applying for the first time and is in a period of distress, doesn't know the system, and suddenly is faced with someone who knows the rules—or at least they would trust would know the rules—it would be important to know that the rules established by Parliament are being followed.
I appreciate your answers and your presence today. Thank you.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Going back to the definition of reasonable interval, I apologize if I missed the answer, but did the concept exist before the 2012-2013 changes?
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Absolutely. In July 2016, we went back to the definition in the regulations. What we are proposing is to put that exact definition in the bill.
NDP
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
It was in the act, but it was replaced with more specific definitions. We went back to the definition before 2013 and will include it in the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there no further questions on this area?
Just so that I'm clear on what I said earlier, my point of view is that some of these issues related to employment insurance that could go to another committee really should be in a separate bill, even if it's a small one, which gets the proper discussion before another committee at which the minister responsible for that act has to appear. That's where I come down on this.
I think the finance department got into a bad habit of doing omnibus bills in the past. It has improved, but the Budget Implementation Act shouldn't be a catch-all for everything else or a way to slip things through the system. That's where I'm coming from, just so you know.
Thank you very much, Ms. Ryan. I know you need to depart.
It is 5:30. If we're going to continue—we have a vote, and the bell is at 5:45—we'd need unanimous consent to continue. Maybe we could get this cleared off our deck if we could deal with these portions tonight.
Go ahead, Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, you've raised some very good points here. I think that perhaps we should send this section to the HUMA committee for consultation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm not sure of the procedure. We'll come back to it next meeting. There is a procedure by which this may in fact go to another committee to study it.
Do you know? I forget.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud
In the past, when the finance committee was dealing with the budget implementation bill, it would, during the course of its study, write to other committees to invite them to study the subject matter of specific clauses related to their mandate and submit to the finance committee proposed amendments, to be deemed moved during the clause-by-clause study of the bill at the finance committee.
Since the clause-by-clause study is planned for the 28th, that would leave only next week for other standing committees to take a look at those clauses. The schedule might be tight, but if the committee wants to propose a motion to invite other committees to take a look at specific clauses and to submit proposals for amendments or give their opinion on them, that's at the discretion of this committee.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I can make the motion, then, if you would find it in order.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, not in this case. You could move a motion that the chair write the committee on this section and ask whether they want to review it and give their response back to us. I think that's what the clerk is saying. That's normal procedure.
Ms. Ryan, you can go. I know you are really tight for time. You don't need to sit through this discussion.
