Human Resources Committee on May 24th, 2022

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

Exactly.

As for the second question on regional representation, I would say that the reality of seasonal work in the various regions is quite difficult. Whether we are in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where forestry is very important, or on the North Shore, where crab fishing and processing represent a significant part of economic activity, unfortunately, the lack of understanding of the reality of seasonal work does not allow all members to properly weigh the credibility of certain claimants or applicants when they talk about the barriers they face in their search for work or their availability to work. At the tripartite board of referees, there were people who understood what was going on in the regions.

We often talk about the independence of the tripartite board, but the neutrality of a board doesn't mean that its members come from outside and do not understand the realities. On the contrary, greater neutrality can be achieved if the reality of the regions is understood.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to come back to the famous tripartite boards of referees, which we have been hearing a lot about for a while now.

Mr. Laliberté, if I understand correctly, the boards of referees were faster, fairer and less expensive.

This may be a very naive question on my part, but why don't we go back to what worked well?

[Pierre Laliberté]

That's an excellent question, and I think it should be asked of the architects.

To be brutally honest, there is a sense that the senior officials responsible for the file are biased toward the status quo. We are trying to preserve as much as possible of what exists. In fact, I think it reflects that very much.

Yet the spirit that was conveyed during the discussions with the minister was that everything was on the table. Unfortunately, there was a bottleneck, and the maze led us into a corner. I think that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Laliberté and Mr. Boulerice.

We'll now have Madam Gladu for five minutes, and we'll end with Madame Martinez Ferrada for five.

Madam Gladu, you have the floor.

[Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses.

My first question is for Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

As the government created a problem by offering those who work for the federal government 10 days of sick leave, while all the other companies offer only two?

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

To be honest, that question is beyond my area of expertise.

MASSE brings together groups that advocate for the rights of the unemployed. So we focus on those issues.

[Marilyn Gladu]

Okay.

My second question is for Mr. Bolduc.

Mr. Bolduc, you said that you prefer to have provisions related to tripartite consultations. Could you explain that in more detail?

[Denis Bolduc]

I'm not sure I understood your question, Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu]

You talk about preferring a tripartite approach, so I was wondering if you could explain a little more, for the appeals coming forward, why what we have in this bill is not going to deliver the benefits of that.

[Denis Bolduc]

Indeed, I would like to understand why the government wants the appeal board to report to the president or the deputy minister. I don't see the benefit of that.

It seems to me that the message the government would send about the independence of the appeal board would be much better if it were under the tripartite commission, for example. In the tripartite structure, the interests of each party are represented: those of the government, those of the employer and those of the workers. By reporting to the commission, the board would be accountable to the stakeholders. That would give a better overall impression of non‑political or lack of political interference in the process.

[Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Laliberté, it looks to me that the system proposed will not give independence. Do you agree? The deputy minister is going to have some views that may not be impartial. At the same time, we've increased the cost of the appeal. Do you have any further comments on this?

[Pierre Laliberté]

There's a lot to be talked about there. First, I think what was said on the commission versus the commission chair is correct.

I think there is a clash of philosophy sometimes when we deal with the civil service, an idea that somehow centralizing decision-making and having one expert in the room is better than having all the stakeholders, so to speak, or the people who have different but probably complementary viewpoints on things. That is a different governance model.

Over the past number of years that I've been in this position...I think it's difficult for some people to even get that there is value to this. To me, strictly on the notion of governance.... In this case I don't need to remind you that we're talking about employers' and workers' contributions. The very basis of the institution is the fact that this program is paid for by workers and employers, so they should have a voice.

[Marilyn Gladu]

They've put their money into it.

We have already heard testimony about the capacity issues, so at the end of the day, do you worry that the new model will make the delays to get an appeal and to get a decision even worse?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give a short answer, please.

[Pierre Laliberté]

This isn't a political question in that sense. I think some extra changes will be needed of the nature I referred to earlier, about the appeal kicking in immediately when a file is contested, instead of waiting for the révision administrative to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

We go now to Madam Martinez Ferrada for five minutes.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to share my time with my colleague Wayne Long.

I want to come back to division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

Ms. Legault‑Thuot, you referred earlier to a few elements from division 32 of part 5, which have surely been discussed or heard about during consultations.

Could you tell us what those elements from division 32 of part 5 are right now?

You also brought up a new system, which is more effective, faster and more transparent. I would also like to come back to that quickly, as I am sharing my time with my colleague.

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

I can answer your first question, but you will have to repeat the second one.

For the time being, the elements presented in the bill concern tripartism and chairmanship.

I will digress. People were wondering earlier why it took so long to introduce this bill. There is an impression that the government is operating in a vacuum and is not talking to stakeholders who use that appeal system.

Right now, MASSE is noting that many improvements have been made to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, SST. Those improvements should be integrated into the mandate of the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal. One of the things I'm thinking of are all the outreach activities to make information more accessible to the unemployed, the form the SST uses to communicate with the unemployed and the calls it makes to them to give them information. Despite all those improvements, when we read the current bill, we feel that there is an intention to start from scratch. But that seems out of touch with the reality on the ground, as improvements made by the SST and the possibilities provided by the board of referees should actually be combined.

There you have it. I know that this does not answer your question.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

No problem, Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

I will share my time with Mr. Long. I know that he won't have much time.

I would ask you to think about the following question and submit your answer in writing.

If you had to amend division 32 of part 5, instead of removing it, what elements would you amend? You can send us your answer in writing if you like.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will yield the floor to Mr. Long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have two minutes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon again to everybody. Thank you so much to our witnesses who have just testified.

I'll throw this question out to anybody who wants to grab it, just for the committee's knowledge. I'm looking for you to elaborate more on how federal paid sick leave requirements and regulations will put pressure on non-federally regulated businesses and provincially regulated sectors to do more on their end to improve workers' benefits. Can you comment on that, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Who do you want to direct it to, Mr. Long?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

It doesn't matter; perhaps Mr. Bolduc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Bolduc.

[Denis Bolduc]

I gather from the question that employers are concerned about the number of sick days, which is 10. That said, I did not hear the question well, as the sound was very low.

I prepared for this meeting by thinking about division 32 of part 5, which concerns appeal boards. I did not go over the entire bill, because, as I said in my opening remarks, it is a brick of a bill. That is why it would be worthwhile to remove division 32 of part 5 of this omnibus bill in order to discuss this specific issue or other issues, for those who may be interested.

I am sorry that is the only answer I can give you.