Human Resources Committee on May 24th, 2022

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

Thank you so much for those answers. Again, thank you for everything you do for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here to answer our questions.

For my part, I would say that we are in a fog. It was foggy this weekend, and we are in a fog with respect to comprehensive employment insurance reform, for which a framework was supposed to be presented to us by June 2022. Now we understand that we will have to wait again. Yet the solutions are known.

Why, in the bill, is the government simply extending the pilot projects for seasonal workers once again without improving them? Why not take the opportunity to improve these programs? Clearly, the extra five weeks of benefits is not enough.

[Anamika Mona Nandy]

As I mentioned, the consultations are ongoing. Those consultations will continue to inform the government's work on EI modernization. Once those consultations are complete, including on the very important topic of supports for seasonal workers and the development of a permanent measure to support this important group of workers, that will move forward as part of the long-term modernization considerations.

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

Why then did they not do the same with the easing of insurable hours, which was temporary and will end in the fall?

[Anamika Mona Nandy]

There was a decision in budget 2022 to provide for a one-year extension for workers in seasonal industries to support this important group of workers. At the same time, those other temporary measures are in effect—

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

This is an important group of workers, but you will agree that it is not enough.

My next question is about division 32 of part 5 of the bill.

The government tells us that employment insurance reform is coming, that there are still consultations and that there are many things to worry about. Why did it not pay as much attention to the appeal board? Both employers and unions had high expectations of this reform.

In an omnibus bill of more than 400 pages, we see a section that deals with the appeal board, which is tripartite in name only, because it does not at all meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019.

How has the government come to propose this now? As far as we know, the main groups involved have not really been consulted. In fact, so far the government is unanimously opposed.

What motivated the government to include in Bill C‑19 the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal, which does not meet the government's 2019 targets?

[Rouba Dabboussy]

By way of background, I would like to clarify that in budget 2019, the government committed to making it easier to navigate employment insurance programs to access benefits and to making programs more responsive to the needs of Canadians. The government also committed to a tripartite model to ensure that decisions made represent the groups it serves.

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

Yet the groups concerned would like us to take the time to consult them. With respect, despite what you say, the formula does not simplify the process at all, but rather promotes inequity. Also, it does not allow providers to have a real voice, as the model is centralized rather than regional.

This therefore raises several questions. Groups are calling on the government to withdraw division 32 from part 5 of the bill so that it can be dealt with separately and considered in its own right, with all that that entails. Would the government be open to this idea?

[Rouba Dabboussy]

There have been many consultations so far. We will certainly provide the information from these consultations afterwards.

I can tell you that the model that we have set out and that the government has promised meets exactly the needs that came out during the consultations. This includes the regional model. There will be members who represent all regions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds.

[Rouba Dabboussy]

There will be approximately 100 members from each group, that is, members of the Employment Insurance Commission, members who represent employers and members who represent employees, and these people will come from across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us.

I will also use my time to talk about employment insurance. Because some of the issues are quite troubling, I want to take this opportunity to share with you the reality on the ground and what people are telling us in our constituency offices.

This past January, there were 300,000 overdue employment insurance files in Canada. On average, these files were three to four months behind schedule. Some people still had not received a response after five months, and in some cases after seven months. While these people are waiting for a response from EI, they remain without benefits, without cheques.

Earlier, you opened the door a little bit by saying that, because of the crisis, you had put in place temporary measures to help people pay their bills. But how do you think people can pay their bills when the system that was put in place is three, four or five months late? How do people pay their bills?

[Annik Casey, Director General, Employment Insurance Benefits Processing, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Boulerice.

We have dealt with unusual volume increases in EI claims over the last year, in large part because of the pandemic of omicron. We also have seasonal peaks that give us peaks and valleys in how we receive claims.

That being said, we have been able to process payments, meeting and exceeding our service standard of being able to pay claimants within 28 days 80% of the time. For the last fiscal year, our service standard was 85.4%, which exceeds our service standard and is the highest result in the last 15 years, if we exclude the period of COVID-19.

The majority of our claims are processed within two weeks for those that are beyond the 28-day service standard, so the 14.6% of remaining claims are processed within two weeks. For the last fiscal year, 2021-22, fewer clients waited beyond 28 days to receive their benefits. The average time it took for clients to receive EI payments was 18 days, and again, excluding the COVID-19 period, this is the best result since tracking began over 13 years ago.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Fine, but maybe the previous 13 years had not been glorious. Sure, if you don't run very fast and then start running a little faster afterwards, you can always pat yourself on the back.

The reality is that people who are unlucky enough to be in the 20% who don't get their cheques have to go into debt. Because they can't get a service, they have to borrow money from friends or family members, or pay for their expenses with their credit cards and pay interest. I find this distressing. These are desperate people knocking on the door of our offices. I hope you will continue to improve your system.

Ms. Dabboussy, could you please send the committee a list of the groups and organizations that you consulted in the creation of the appeal board?

[Rouba Dabboussy]

Absolutely.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Thank you.

How is it that on this appeal board, the government representatives are appointed full time, but the employer and union representatives are only appointed part time?

I understand my colleague Ms. Chabot when she says that this tribunal is tripartite in name only. It is not at all like the arbitration boards, which worked well at the time.

[Rouba Dabboussy]

I would like to clarify that the model was originally thought of as a part-time appointment for all members. The difference is that the position of director of the appeal board and the six coordinator positions are full-time. The rest of the positions are part-time, according to the established model. This is because we want to make sure that when the new board is up and running, the current members of the Social Security Tribunal whose term of office has not ended will be in place to offer their services and knowledge. So this is a temporary measure.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

All right. Thank you for the clarification.

Will people who want to appeal a decision and defend their case be entitled to in‑person and regional hearings or, on the contrary, will the tribunal be rather centralized and not allow in‑person hearings?

In reality, it matters a lot to people to be able to defend their case in person. It helps them enormously. It's also very important to them that they don't have to pay to travel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds. Please give a short answer.

[Rouba Dabboussy]

The short answer is clients will have both options.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Monsieur Boulerice.

Now we'll go to Mr. Ruff for five minutes.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

My first question will build off MP Kusie's earlier question on division 26 and the answer, which was about the negotiation with the provinces that needs to happen and the timeline.

To the witnesses, do you think it's actually going to be in this budget year that those negotiations will be completed?

[Saajida Deen]

In the budget—let me just pull up the exact language now—the government signals its intent to intensify discussions with the provinces and territories, and it says, “over the coming year”. That's the direction we have out of budget 2022, so it's certainly our hope for that to take place.