Human Resources Committee on May 24th, 2022

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Bolduc, with regard to negotiations and interaction with the Province of Quebec, for example, do you think that what has been presented opens the door to better co‑operation, collaboration or exchange?

[Denis Bolduc]

Are you talking specifically about the appointment of members?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

No, not necessarily.

We are talking about offering sick leave to workers, but what Quebec and the federal government are offering is different. Would the consultation process presented in the bill make it possible to work better with the province?

[Denis Bolduc]

Today, I'm focused on division 32 of part 5 of the bill.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

I understand.

[Denis Bolduc]

If you'd like, I can send you a response in writing.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, if you wish. Thank you for that.

[Denis Bolduc]

Thank you.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Is Ms. Legault‑Thuot still there?

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

Yes.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Okay.

You can answer the question.

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

Like Mr. Bolduc, I am prepared to talk about division 32 of part 5 of the bill.

In this regard, it is clear that the government is taking note of some of the demands of union and community groups. It has understood the need for tripartism.

Our concern in this regard is the understanding of all the implications of this tripartite approach to administrative justice accessible to vulnerable people. That has not been understood in its entirety. That's why we want the bill to be split up to ensure that every dimension and the spirit of tripartism are respected. It's not enough to have only workers' representatives and employer representatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Chabot. You have six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses.

Everyone has talked about the pandemic and the difficult time we've been through. In terms of employment insurance, I'd like to acknowledge all your work and efforts with workers and the unemployed. Thank you for that. The Employment Insurance Commission plays a major role in our structure.

We keep talking about consultations.

Mr. Laliberté, we were promised that there would be consultations, and you confirmed that there have been many. However, if everyone is asking for division 32 to be removed from part 5 of the bill, it's because between those consultations and the end of the work, there were no consultations.

The groups concerned were consulted on what the government wanted to implement in 2019. Three years later, it's in an omnibus budget implementation bill. Between then and now, there have been no consultations, and that's why you are asking for a separate bill so that consultations can be carried out properly. Is that a good analysis?

My question is for Mr. Bolduc and Mr. Laliberté.

[Denis Bolduc]

I agree with you in the sense that this subject is receiving a lot of attention. We have been calling for the modernization of the employment insurance system for years.

This bill contains a section on the creation of appeal boards, but it is buried in an omnibus bill. Because of that, there isn't the discussion, exchange and consultation required to properly analyze the bill. It may be a little difficult to respond to this request, but I think it would be really wise to remove this section and make it a bill. It would allow for a focused discussion on the matter, which is of great importance to many people in Canada.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

As I understand it, there have been several consultations and reports. We are now being presented with a bill, but there has been no consultation on what is before us, which is why it would be interesting to do this work. It will be difficult to do it in the time available to us, so I understand why division 5 should be removed from part 5 of the bill.

In addition, according to some stakeholders, this affects several pieces of legislation, including the Employment Insurance Act, and we need time to study this whole process.

I have a very important question. It is all well and good to include the word “tripartism” in the text of a bill, but we must consider its meaning. Why is it important that the appeal process provide EI claimants with the right to regional representation and the option of an in‑person hearing? As far as we can see, this is not included in this bill.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Allow me to answer your question.

This was one of the most important issues. In fact, Mrs. Kusie asked me what had come out of the consultations, and one of the key things was that people wanted that close relationship with the process. Minister Duclos said at the time that it was to somewhat humanize this whole administrative apparatus. You're right to point out the lack of details in this regard.

We don't want to relive what we went through with the SST with a new structure that would be autonomous, that would do more or less what it wants. We want to avoid being told that full‑time members are only there temporarily, that everyone will be part‑time next year and that the structure will be well distributed across the territory.

However, once the machine is gone, when you no longer have any leverage or oversight, you are in trouble. We were in that situation with the SST. It's important to remember that the minister had to ask for an independent inquiry in order to get the facts, because he might not have had them elsewhere.

We are asking that the necessary time be taken to do the exercise properly this time. I don't think it's in vain, because I think it's important to make sure that all parties are involved in the process and that the outcome reflects the intentions and objectives that were set out initially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Monsieur Boulerice, go ahead for six minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. My first question will be for Mr. Bolduc and Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

You both emphasized the right of workers to an in‑person hearing before this new appeal board and to regional representation, so that access to rights isn't limited by burdensome transportation and accommodation costs, for example. I don't know if you had a chance to listen to the people who were with us in the last hour, but I asked this question and was told that there would be these opportunities. Is an opportunity a right? I'm a bit skeptical.

Based on what you've heard, does this give you some comfort, or do you still have concerns with Bill C‑19?

I would ask Mr. Bolduc to answer first. Then I'd like to hear from Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

[Denis Bolduc]

I didn't hear the comment that was made earlier, but until it's written in black and white, there is certainly concern. People prefer to speak to stakeholders who know their region. They have to understand the reality of the market people are in. For example, seasonal work in the Gaspé is not the same as seasonal work in Quebec City or Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. However, this is called seasonal work.

This means that the stakeholders need to have a thorough knowledge of the area where the people who use the appeal board are located and of the local labour market. The selection process should be designed with criteria that are similar to that.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Go ahead, Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

With regard to the need for in‑person hearings, to give you an overview, the MASSE member groups have been representing unemployed workers who have wanted to challenge decisions of the Social Security Tribunal for several years. One of their findings, which is difficult to quantify, is the fact that hearings that are held virtually or by telephone have an impact on the unemployed person's understanding of their situation or on the empathy they may have for them. Understanding their limitations in literacy, language or use of technology has a significant impact, not on judgment, but on assessing their credibility. In many cases, in making a decision, the Social Security Tribunal will ask itself whether the person made a reasonable choice.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

It's an important factor.