Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning. My name is Luc Vachon, and I am president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, CSD. Thank you for inviting us and for taking the time to listen to our suggestions.
I want to begin by specifying that I will focus my remarks on division 32 of part 5 of the bill. It's not that other divisions are not worthy of attention, but you will understand that division 32 is of special interest to us. For a while, we have been raising the issue of returning to the tripartite formula found in the division titled Employment Insurance Board of Appeal. For the CSD, there is no doubt that the government proceeding to a reform of the employment insurance appeal process is excellent news, especially nearly three years after that reform was announced. However, division 32 must be amended to ensure that the reform will be carried out according to the announced parameters, while learning a few lessons from the shortcomings of the Social Security Tribunal, SST.
Division 32 of part 5 should contain provisions providing that the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal fall under the tripartite structure of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, and not only its chairmanship.
We feel that returning to tripartism in the employment insurance appeal process must only be done when the insured person is heard from. The insured person must be present and represented in the entire appeal structure. That would actually be in line with the discussions that were held in the co-development committee by the government, in fall 2018, at the initiative of Minister Duclos. That would also correspond to the press release announcement made by Employment and Social Development Canada, on August 15, 2019, from which I will quote a short excerpt:
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission will become responsible for first-level EI appeals through the creation of a new tripartite decision-making tribunal called the Employment and Insurance Boards of Appeal. As a tripartite organization, the new Boards of Appeal will represent the interests of government, workers and employers, helping put first-level EI appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the EI system (i.e. workers and employers).
We think that reports should be made directly to the Employment Insurance Commission to monitor how union and employer representatives are recruited, appointed and trained and how they fulfil their mandate on boards of appeal. The government must not repeat the mistake made in the case of the Social Security Tribunal, which practically has no accountability to the Employment Insurance Commission. At the worst of the Social Security Tribunal's dysfunctions, the commission was actually powerless to request reports and to get adjustments.
In addition, provisions must be added to division 32 to grant employment insurance recipients the right to regional representation and a high likelihood of an in-person hearing. At the SST, the default hearing, so to speak, was held over the telephone. That trend must be reversed, so that in-person hearings would become the default. Concrete access to an in-person hearing has been recognized as a key aspect of any reform of the employment insurance appeal system.
Hearings must also be held as much as possible in the region of the insured person, so that it would be held by members who are familiar with the regional labour market realities, instead of by members who have a more detached view of the labour market, if you will, as it is too general. To give just one obvious example, the reality of regions is very different from the reality of major centres. Decisions must take that into account and reflect it as much as possible.
What's more, division 32 should provide for all members of boards of appeal to have a part-time status. Assigning a separate employment status to different members of the board of appeal may lead to different levels of implication and effectiveness for full-time members and part–time members. That could create inequity, which would be reinforced by differences in status and compensation between full-time members and part-time members.
Full-time members of the board of appeal are deemed to be public service employees who also participate in the superannuation plan, but not part-time members. Full-time members can be appointed as chairs and co‑chairs—