Human Resources Committee on May 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

With that, we'll conclude the first grouping.

I would like to say a special thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing. I gather there were some obstacles to appearing virtually with us today at the committee in this important work that the committee is undertaking. I thank you on behalf of the committee for being available under some trying circumstances in Ottawa. Thank you, all.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes while we transition to the second grouping.

Clerk, advise me whenever the second grouping is ready.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome to the second panel on the study of the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions to the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

We're appearing virtually. I will advise all witnesses that they can speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation is available with the icon at the bottom of your Surface. If you're in the committee room, use translation. If translation fails, please seek my attention and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

I would like to remind the witnesses that they have five minutes for an opening statement, and to direct it through me as the chair. I would ask you to speak slowly for the benefit of translation services. I will indicate when your time is running out by indicating that 10 seconds are left.

We'll start with Mr. Bolduc, from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

Mr. Bolduc, you have the floor.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament and members of the committee, thank you for having me here today and for the opportunity to provide my organization's comments on Bill C‑19, specifically on division 32 of part 5.

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec is the largest central labour body in Quebec. With approximately 600,000 members, it represents over 40% of unionized workers in Quebec.

Our union is the main voice for salaried workers in Quebec. It is their privileged place for collective action and solidarity. The FTQ has members in every region and every sector of activity in Quebec, whether in offices, factories, shops or construction sites, in both the private and public sectors. In fact, we have members in public institutions. I would also like to point out that one third of the FTQ's members are women.

Division 32 of part 5 of the budget implementation bill tells us more about reforming the employment insurance appeals process.

In light of what was announced via press release in August 2019, we expected good news. However, it turns out that the bill is rather a source of concern for us. It does not correspond to what was stated in the press release. We are therefore greatly concerned about the way the reform is being set in motion by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

The first point I want to make is that the reform of the employment insurance appeals process is included in an omnibus bill that has five parts, the fifth of which has 32 divisions and three schedules. One would be hard-pressed to find a better way to bury the issue. Our fears that this reform will not get the attention it deserves are real, because of the number of topics included in the bill.

The number of places available in parliamentary committees, as we know, is not unlimited. So there is a real possibility that organizations with an interest in reforming the appeals process will be overlooked and not invited. So, we believe that division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 should be removed from this omnibus bill and be the subject of a separate bill. This is what we recommend in order to ensure that the reform receives proper consideration and deliberation.

I would like to draw your attention to a second element: the bill on the reform of the appeals process must contain provisions for the new appeal board to report to the tripartite structure of the Employment Insurance Commission, not just to its chair. The government had promised a return to a tripartite body for the first level of appeal. This is a significant change in direction and a serious departure from the promise that was made. In our opinion, there must be a direct line of accountability to the Employment Insurance Commission. Why? In order to monitor how union and employer representatives are deployed and to ensure that people are properly trained and fulfilling their mandate on the appeal board.

In addition, provisions still need to be added to the appeals process reform bill to give employment insurance claimants the right to regional representation and the opportunity for an in‑person hearing. In 2018, we understood that reforming the employment insurance appeals process required reforms that were client-centred, flexible, and could accommodate diverse situations.

With respect to the appeal board, the bill provides for two categories of members: full-time and part-time. The reform bill should provide for all members of the appeal board to be appointed on a part-time basis. Giving separate employment status to different members of the appeal board may result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness for full-time and part-time members. Full-time appeal board members are deemed to be employees of the public service and members of the public service pension plan, but part-time members are not. Full-time members of the appeal board may be appointed as chair, vice-chair or coordinating member, but not part-time members. In our view, this is a perfect recipe for leaving room for unequal and inequitable information-sharing and for creating inequalities among appeal board members in terms of commitment and effectiveness.

The final point I want to make is that the reform bill must include language that specifies that the Employment Insurance Commission will oversee the selection process for the employee and employer members of the board of appeal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Denis Bolduc]

The board of appeal will not be truly tripartite if the social partners are not directly involved in the selection and appointment of employee and employer members.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc.

We will continue with Camille Legault‑Thuot, from the Quebec network of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi.

[Camille Legault-Thuot, Research and Communications Manager, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi - réseau québécois]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having me here today.

The Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (MASSE) is an association of groups defending the rights of the unemployed in close to 10 regions of Quebec. MASSE has been campaigning for more than 20 years for a universal and fair-access employment insurance system.

We have read Section 32 in Part 5 of Bill C‑19 and we wish to voice our concerns regarding the reform of the appeal process that may be implemented this year.

My remarks are going to be similar to those of several speakers today. I will make sure it is not repetitive, but MASSE still wishes to share a number of observations that must be considered before the bill is passed.

Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C‑19, that is, nearly 3 years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.

Given the precarious situation of unemployed individuals who wish to challenge a decision by the Employment Insurance Commission, the government must ensure that the new appeal process is simple, quick, efficient, transparent and, above all, tailored to the needs of the unemployed. However, based on the information provided in Bill C‑19, there is nothing to indicate that the new board of appeal will truly represent a step forward in terms of access to justice for the unemployed. Moreover, it hardly constitutes a solution for the problems observed on the Social Security Tribunal. On the contrary, MASSE fears that, in an effort to reform an already fragile structure from the ground up, the new board of appeal will discourage the unemployed from asserting their rights, because it reflects too little of the recommendations submitted by the various stakeholders in the working group set up in 2018, in which MASSE was an active participant.

I'd like to make a few short points about the actual content of the bill, which will resemble those already mentioned.

In its current form, the new board of appeal seriously undermines the tripartite spirit that was, you will recall, central to the boards of referees. We must remember that an appeal process better adapted to the reality of the unemployed must certainly have employee and employer representatives, along with members familiar with the regional particularities of the labour market, but it must also ensure that unemployed workers have access to in-person hearings and that it appoints enough members to meet needs within a reasonable time frame. Remember that in the board of referees days, 300 people were appointed to represent workers. I understand from earlier comments that this number would now be about 100.

We make the same comment with respect to the independence of the new board of appeal. We have good reason to call its independence into question because the deputy minister of Employment and Social Development, not the EI Commission, would be responsible for managing the board of appeal.

What we at MASSE are wondering is, why are so many powers being taken away from the EI Commission? In the new bill, the commissioners only play a symbolic role. Contrary to what one of the speakers said, we believe that, in its current form, the EI Commission will have members recommended by the chair, but they will only be able to appoint them on a part-time basis. As an independent federal institution representing the rights of employees and employers, the EI Commission should have the same central role in organizing the appeal process to ensure that it represents those who pay into the regime. It should therefore have more say in the training and appointment of board of appeal members.

The same thing goes for accountability. In this context, how does the government intend to ensure the exchange of information between the EI Commission and the body that allows these decisions to be challenged? Right now, that is a major issue. The EI Commission is unable to become associated with the decisions of the Social Security Tribunal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

In closing, we too are calling for reform to be addressed in a separate bill. In other words, we would like Section 32 in Part 5 of Bill C‑19 to be removed. If passed in its current form, it will undermine any opportunity for meaningful review with stakeholders, and it stands in the way of achieving the goals set forth by Minister Duclos in summer 2019.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mr. Laliberté, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Pierre Laliberté and I've been a commissioner for workers at Employment Insurance Commission since 2016. I was therefore present for many of the deliberations on this issue. Having followed all of this quite closely, I have to say that it's a bit disappointing to be here conveying our concerns to you about what is being introduced in Section 32 of Part 5 of Bill C‑19, rather than celebrating the creation of the new board of appeals. It's too bad, but it is what it is.

I really like the remarks that have been made before me. I think they do a good job of pointing out the concerns and issues in connection with this reform.

The reform was announced in 2019 after a long process of study and consultation. Here, I will respond to Mrs. Kusie's comment about whether consultations took place. Consultations were held across Canada. They were facilitated by KPMG, which was mandated by the government to do a field investigation. I attended the seven or eight meetings held at the time.

Based on KPMG's observations, which were absolutely terse about the performance of the Social Security Tribunal, the minister at the time, Mr. Duclos, convened a working group that brought together stakeholders from the business community, the labour community, the community in general and the department, of course, to come up with a compromise and find something that could work.

The objectives were clear. The first was to reinstate a fast, unencumbered process that would meet people's needs. It must be said that at the time, the backlogs were horrible, in the style of what Mr. Boulerice mentioned earlier. Next, they wanted to bring back a peer justice system with the participation of community members. Finally, they wanted to bring back community-based justice by facilitating in-person hearings.

While cost was not central to the exercise, but it was an underlying issue. They discovered that, despite the fact that the Social Security Tribunal was created to save money, exactly the opposite was true. Right now, a decision by the Social Security Tribunal, which operates much more efficiently today than it did four years ago, still costs $4,000. When we had the boards of referees, which were local tripartite groups, it cost about $700 per decision. You can do the math. As you can see, even though the objective was to reduce costs, they didn't succeed.

Among all the organizations involved in this issue, I have not found a single one aligned with what's being recommended here. My colleague Nancy Healey, who is the commissioner for employers, and I sent a letter to Minister Qualtrough to voice our concerns. My colleague also made an effort to consult with her stakeholders and found that they did indeed have concerns about this. This led us to recommend that Section 32 be removed from Part 5 of the bill, rather than trying to amend it on the fly, and get the job done appropriately.

I'm not going to go into everything that has already been said. But I will talk about one thing in particular, and that is the role of the Employment Insurance Commission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds left, Mr. Laliberté.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Okay. I will stop here then.

I'm ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Laliberté.

We'll now begin the first round, with Madam Kusie.

Madam Kusie, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Laliberté, I'd like to give you the opportunity to finish your presentation.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Thank you for that.

I simply wanted to point out that in the last reform in 2012, the Commission was put on the sidelines, which placed it in the spotlight, and that kept us from playing our watchdog role with respect to appeal system operations. When serious malfunctions occurred around 2013, 2014 and 2015, much like everyone else, we found ourselves watching the rather dismal spectacle without being able to do much about it.

Management of the Social Security Tribunal has tightened up greatly since then. The fact remains that the Commission has virtually no say in operations, and we feel that is a pretty significant issue. The problem was recognized by Minister Jean‑Yves Duclos at the time. Bringing management back to the Commission was part of the 2019 announcement. That's why many organizations, and even we commissioners, were surprised that it was dropped in the end. It was done rather brazenly. They said the Commission president was involved, but in actual fact it was the deputy minister.

Why single out the Commission? It's a mystery to us. The lady, whose name I cannot recall, and I apologize to her for that, said that it was because there had to be a decision-maker. However, I would point out that the Commission can play that role very well.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

You commented on the consultations, Mr. Laliberté, but I wondered if you had more to say.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Absolutely. Once again, thank you.

There was a common thread in everything that was said at the consultations. When people were asked what the most important thing was, they all said we should go back to the old system. The old system was the boards of referees. Another thing that's quite important, but is not covered in Part 5, section 32, is the administrative review process. During that process, someone appealing a decision could have their case reviewed.

In the past, the system worked that way. As soon as you challenged a case, you went straight to the appeal stage. So within 30 days, we would have a hearing. The department would do an informal administrative review to decide on the merits of cases. When the Commission could not win a case, they would step back and change the decision. In cases where the individual was not right, the next step was a hearing.

It took 30 days. Right now, you're lucky if the administrative review process is finished in 30 days. Then you can appeal the decision. If you're lucky, a decision will be rendered in the next 45 days. There are a lot of if's in this scenario. That's why many of the stakeholders who spoke out asked for a return to the old system, which triggered the appeal process at the outset. This would in a way force the department to review cases in a timely manner for the benefit of everyone involved.

We're talking about quite modest amounts, but they are nonetheless significant to the individuals. Getting them three or four months later makes a big difference to them. So it's important that the system be fast and unencumbered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Laliberté.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Martinez Ferrada, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I heard you talk a lot about the announced reform and the consultation work that has been done, particularly on the issue of employment insurance.

I'd like your thought on a few things.

Our committee is studying several sections of the bill. Earlier, my colleague referred to 10‑day sick leave payments for workers. I think that work has also been done to improve consultation and work with the provinces.

I would like to know what you find good in the sections under consideration. What are the potential effects of the changes being presented, particularly on how Quebec and the federal government will be able to interact with regard to the provision of employment benefits and the other measures presented?

I would also like to hear your comments on the type of criteria we could put in place in for Governor in Council appointments, to ensure that Quebec will be properly represented on the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal.

I would like each witness to answer the question briefly because the time for questions and answers is limited.

Mr. Bolduc, you can go first. Then, Ms. Legault‑Thuot can answer.

[Denis Bolduc]

When it comes to appointments, it is important to have people who represent the regions well. Some time ago, I heard some concerns from the government about diversity representation, for example. I've been hearing less about it for quite some time, specifically with regard to appointments.

On both the worker and employer sides, diversity concerns need to be clear and defined, without setting quotas. Everyone needs to be aware of this concern and consider it. I think we are capable of doing this work.