Good morning, Ms. Chabot. Thank you.
We had initially asked for clause 32 to be considered separately so that the issues it covers could be examined in greater depth. Frankly, since its reform, the Social Security Tribunal has done major damage for several years. It has neither been efficient nor cost‑effective.
You’d want to avoid making the same mistakes again when overhauling the tribunal and the way it operates. We’d like for things to be set straight, as they should’ve been from the start. There seems to be consensus on a tripartite model, which is excellent news. There were consultations, but will the outcomes of those consultations be taken into consideration?
We had asked for consultations because Bill C‑19 is colossal, just huge. Our concern and the reason why we wanted to have clause 32 considered separately is that potential corrections have been discussed for years. Opportunities like these don’t arise very often, so it’s important not to fumble. Any misstep could be felt for years.
We called for a separate review of clause 32 out of a desire to achieve the best possible outcome. We would be concerned if that did not happen.