Evidence of meeting #50 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was co-op.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP MacDonald.
Now we'll have questions from the Bloc and MP Chabot for six minutes, please.
May 24th, 2022 / 12:10 p.m.
Louise Chabot Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their presentations.
Mr. Beauregard, I'd like to ask you a question about division 32 of part 5 in Bill C‑19, which involves numerous reforms and over 400 pages. It's clear that things are going slowly for employment insurance. We had been promised a comprehensive reform in 2015, but nothing was done, except for minor amendments. In 2019, A major reform of the Social Security Tribunal was promised, with a return to tripartite appeal boards. Today, we find ourselves with this division, which contains the word “tripartite”, but I think that what you're resolutely asking for is the removal of this division from the bill for a separate study.
How would studying it separately facilitate everyone's approval of this bill?
12:10 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you for your question, Ms. Chabot.
Why do we feel it would be better for us to remove division 32 of part 5 of the bill? I think we would give us time to look into the matter in greater depth. A reform had been planned in 2015 and it still hasn't happened. Given where we are at the moment, we think it should be done properly and thoroughly. There is division 32 of part 5, but we know that there will probably be lots of other changes made to employment insurance, including the matter of accessibility. It would be helpful to remove this division of the bill in order to conduct a study on employment insurance.
As for the term “tripartite”, it's only that in name for the time being. The structure looks as if it's tripartite, but it is basically very different from what there was before, and we think there will be problems if it's applied as is.
I'll stop there, but it is certainly something to reconsider.
12:10 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
So what you're saying is that it would enable us to do an in‑depth study with the stakeholders concerned, from both the employee and employer standpoints. I hope that it will be brought to the attention of everyone in attendance at the Standing Committee on Finance. We've already waited more than two years, so we can wait another few months to do things properly.
I wanted to ask you a question about a subject that seems to be important to you.
Why is it important for the employment insurance appeal process to provide the right to regional representation and to an in‑person hearing?
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Thank you.
For a long time, before 2013, people came in person to defend their case. They could see the interveners properly and there were people there from their community. In Quebec, there were between 15 and 20 regions represented, and they too were people from the same kind of background. When it was the union party, people were appointed by the union organizations and when it was the employer party, there were also people appointed from that side.
These were people who knew the region and the community, and were accordingly familiar with the case at issue. Needless to say, there are considerable differences between the status of a seasonal worker in British Columbia and one working in Gaspé, even though there are similarities as well. That's why it's important to factor in the realities of each setting to make the decisions as equitable and fair as possible.
12:15 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
As someone on the union side, are you expecting to play an important role in appointing these representatives, the members who are eligible to be on the board?
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Definitely. The answer is clear, neat and precise. We are hoping for a return to the way things were before.
12:15 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
I infer from what you said that for the time being, division 32 of part 5 does not meet these objectives at all.
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
Our opinion is that division 32 of part 5 does not meet them.
As I pointed out, the structure looks tripartite, but it is basically not.
12:15 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
Have you had any feedback about whether it would be possible to remove this division from the bill? This division doesn't really have a financial impact, whereas Bill C-19 is generally about budgetary matters.
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
No, we haven't heard anything back.
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
No, none, in spite of the letters that were sent. As I mentioned, on May 9, we sent a letter to Minister Qualtrough about this issue and haven't had a reply.
12:15 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
You spoke about the process at the regional level and the right to an in-person hearing. Why is it important for this new tribunal to report to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission rather than to a single chair?
12:15 p.m.
Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec
The important thing is that the management and union sides can have an influence. One of the parties would no longer exist. Real tripartism means getting along, working together and coming to a decision.
I have often been involved in consultations that were not really consultations. I can tell you that if we are not performing an advisory role, the process can become perilous. When we are part of the decision-making and the process, we take more time to look at things and analyze circumstances.
We believe that it's dangerous to put all the power into the hands of a single person.
12:15 p.m.
Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ
Thank you.
Do I have any speaking time left, Mr. Chair?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Chabot. That is the time. There will be other rounds.
Now we will have questions from MP Blaikie for the NDP for six minutes.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
Ms. Long, I was hoping that we could talk a bit more about some of the risks inherent in the government's approach to the express entry system. One place to start is making the change based on membership in a group, versus being explicit about the fact that these appear intended to be occupational lists.
If there are a bunch of Canadians who are inclined to agree that there should be some kind of occupational classification for the express entry system, what are some of the risks of defining it in the legislation as membership within a group, instead of being very explicit about membership within an occupational category?
12:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
This may be the intention right now for the current minister, but these provisions give power to any minister in the immigration system. For example, maybe one minister might think that selection based on nationality—this is what they do in the States—is something that they want to do.
There is an endless variety of selection. The issue is that right now the minister is subject to parliamentary oversight when they want to make changes to the selection criteria. With these provisions, there will be no parliamentary oversight.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
If the government was more clear in the legislation about its current intent, that would also provide opportunities for Parliament to weigh in when a different government or even the same government decided that it wanted to make alterations to the express entry system. Is that fair to say?
12:20 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
Yes, that's right. If it defined it, instead of having ambiguous groupings.... If it defined it based on occupation-based selection, at least we'd know that that's its intent and that it could only select based on occupations.
However, at that point, I would also like to argue that it would be best to have time for other immigration witnesses to speak about this provision and the benefits and costs of doing that occupation-based selection, rather than having a brief debate in a finance committee on a budget bill.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Are you aware of some examples in the past of an immigration minister abusing discretionary authority within the system? How do you think a more public system with more transparency and more clarity around the determination of rules for the express entry system would help to avoid similar kinds of abuse in the future?
12:20 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
I don't necessarily know if it's intentional abuse. I think every minister does what they feel is right according to what they think. The end results, however, are often problematic. For example, this year, we have had a huge issue with backlog in express entry because last year the Minister of Immigration decided to impose an occupation-based system under the ministerial instructions, which they are now able to do because of the wide discretionary powers. Last year in October they filled up all of the inventory for this year. Now we are facing a huge issue in immigration because of a discretionary decision by a minister on which immigration experts in the field were not consulted with respect to whether or not that would be a good idea.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
One of the questions that comes up when we're talking about a really high level of discretionary authority for a minister is that people might say circumstances change and we need to have some flexibility. Within the immigration community, when we're talking about what targets Canada should have and what criteria we should have for entry, is it your impression that things are changing so much year to year that the minister has to be in power to have this kind of discretionary authority, or is it more the opinion that immigration is meant to respond to medium- to long-term strategic economic factors, or certainly the express entry system is? There are other parts of the immigration system based on moral considerations about family reunification and refugees, but within economic immigration, is it the view that this is really a medium- to long-term strategic thing and we shouldn't need to make major program changes year to year at the discretion of a particular individual as opposed to having a more strategic process?
12:20 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
Absolutely. I think the decision-makers like to have flexibility in their decision-making. It would be nice if when they made a decision, they could just carry it out.
On the other side, you have people who depend on their decisions. People, when they go through the immigration system, need to structure their lives. They get a lot of points by studying in Canada, for example. They get a lot of points by doing certain sorts of occupations.
People actually plan their lives out and probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars going to school in Canada and finding a job, and then all of a sudden when the system changes and they are no longer able to go to apply for permanent residence, this creates havoc for the applicants. The situation in Canada right now, because of the backlog, is that we have hundreds of thousands of people who can't apply under the express entry system. It also is very detrimental to Canada's reputation and our ability to attract the very people who this system is meant to attract.