THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 31, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:02 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35 and 38 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public who are watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, and I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
I would like to begin with a quick round table of introductions.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey from Ontario.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis from Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We continue our study on the subject matter of various divisions of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, that were referred to our committee on April 27, 2023.
Today, our meeting will be focusing on Divisions 13, 14, 15, 35 and 38 of the bill, which deal with the Canada Pension Plan, the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal.
For our first panel, in person and by video conference, we welcome officials from Employment and Social Development Canada, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency.
Before we begin, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room with us to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or if you choose to do so, kindly remove your earpiece. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Officials from Employment and Social Development Canada will have 10 minutes for opening remarks on Divisions 13, 14, 15, 35 and 38, before we proceed to questions.
We will begin with Mr. Leblanc on Division 13.
Neal Leblanc, Director, Canada Pension Plan Policy and Legislation, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: The Department of Employment and Social Development Canada has traditionally used data collected under the Income Tax Act for the purposes of policy analysis, research and evaluation related to the administration of the Canada Pension Plan. The disclosure of taxpayer information in this way is provided under section 241(4)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends section 92 of the Canada Pension Plan to clarify that any information collected under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue — including not only information under Part I of the Canada Pension Plan, but also information collected under the Income Tax Act — may be shared with the department for the purposes of policy analysis, research and evaluation with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leblanc.
We will proceed to Ms. Stephanie Brodeur on Division 14.
[Translation]
Stephanie Brodeur, Manager Partnerships, Integrity Services Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Brodeur. I am the acting Director of Identity Policies and the Social Insurance Number program at ESDC. I am here to provide information on an amendment to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to support the sharing of death information within the department itself.
In 2015, the Main Point of Contact with the Government of Canada in Case of Death Act made ESDC the main point of contact for Canadians when reporting a death, but only to those programs with the authority to use the Social Insurance Number or SIN.
We do this by sharing the notification we receive from clients, provinces and territories. We add it to the deceased individual’s SIN record, and share it with ESDC’s authorized programs and other federal government departments and agencies.
Currently, our clients must report a death multiple times to ESDC because not all departmental programs have the authority to collect and use the SIN and therefore cannot access the death information stored in our clients’ records.
This amendment would ensure that after a privacy assessment, and with the approval of the minister, any ESDC program requiring this information could collect and use the SIN for the purposes of effective program administration and enforcement, and subsequently access death information in the Social Insurance Register. This would increase program integrity, reduce overpayments and improve client service.
[English]
The Chair: For Division 15, Ms. Angelina Barrados, the floor is yours.
Angelina Barrados, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Strategic Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: I’m Angelina Barrados, with Employment Insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada. I’m here to speak to Division 15, which is leave related to the death or disappearance of a child.
There are two amendments to this leave under Part III of the Canada Labour Code, with the intent of maintaining alignment with improvements to the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime.
[Translation]
To put things in context, the purpose of the leave is to ensure that employees in private sector businesses under federal jurisdiction can take leave and receive income support without fear of losing their job if they find themselves in the unfortunate situation of experiencing the death or disappearance of a child in the event of a crime.
Since its introduction in 2013, Criminal Code provisions regarding leave align with those in the Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime.
[English]
In line with changes to the benefit, the proposed amendments to the leave would extend the maximum duration of the unpaid leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks — that is two to three years — and repeal the exception to the eligibility that disentitles an employee to the leave if it is probable that their child was a party to the crime which led to their death. I’d be happy to answer any further questions. Thank you.
The Chair: On Division 35, we will hear from Mr. Benoit Cadieux.
Benoit Cadieux, Director, Policy Analysis and Initiatives, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon. I’m Benoit Cadieux, and I’m the Director of Employment Insurance Policy Analysis and Initiatives at Employment and Social Development Canada. Division 35 of Part 4 of this bill amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend from October 28, 2023, to October 26, 2024 — the end date of the current temporary Employment Insurance rules that provide additional weeks of Employment Insurance regular benefits to seasonal workers in certain regions.
This extension will enable eligible seasonal claimants in targeted Employment Insurance economic regions — in other words, the 13 targeted regions in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the Yukon — to continue to have access to up to five additional weeks of Employment Insurance regular benefits to a maximum entitlement of 45 weeks in their off-season. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadieux. We will now proceed to Division 38, and we have, by video conference, Ms. Mona El Bahar.
Mona El Bahar, Acting Director General, Individual Payments and On-Demand Services, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Service Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada: Hello and thank you.
[Translation]
My name is Mona El Bahar. I am a Director General with Service Canada and ESDC. I’m here to present on Division 38, the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal initiative.
In Budget 2019, the government committed to making the employment insurance recourse process easier to navigate and more responsive to the needs of Canadians.
This included creating the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal, returning to the tripartite decision-making model with regionally dispersed part-time members. It also provides clients with the right to choose between in-person, video conference and telephone hearings.
As a tripartite organization, the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal would represent the interests of government, workers and employers, helping put first-level employment insurance appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the system.
Over the summer of 2022, consultations were held to review issues raised by stakeholders and parliamentarians, examine possible solutions and identify any remaining concerns relating to the proposed legislation. In parallel, consultation in the form of an online survey open to the public was also conducted to review certain aspects of the employment insurance appeal process.
The proposed legislation, initially tabled in December 2022 as a stand-alone bill, was presented to both of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commissioners, and subsequently presented to stakeholders at a forum organized by the Commissioner for Workers.
We are of the opinion that the legislation being put forward responds to what employment insurance appellants, their representatives and stakeholders have been asking for.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. El Bahar.
We will now proceed to questions. I’ll remind senators that you will have three minutes for your questions, and that includes the answers from the witnesses. If a question is to be answered by an official who is not presently seated at the table, please come forward and assume the open seat. I believe that seat number 16 is open, and, if you do so, I would ask you to introduce yourself and your department when speaking for the first time.
I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to two submissions that were received and forwarded to you by individuals who are members of this panel, but who are not speaking: Nancy Healey, Commissioner for Employers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission; and Shirley Netten, Interim Chairperson, Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here today. I’m pleased with a lot of the decisions that have been made in terms of changes, such as the extension of Employment Insurance benefits for seasonal workers, as well as the leave for parents if a child is missing or deceased. Thank you very much for that.
My questions are related to Division 38, specifically the proposed Employment Insurance board of appeal; I’m also very pleased to see that. I was the chair of the Board of Referees back in the day, and I think that people feel much more comfortable when it’s in person and when they are able to tell their stories.
If the bill passes by the end of June — it’s a budget bill, so maybe it won’t, but we’ll assume that it will — when do you anticipate that the new board of appeal will be in place? That is my first question.
How will there be a smooth transition between what is currently in place and the new appeal board? What existing resources from the tribunal will now be used for the board of appeal, or will there be a new source of funding for the board of appeal?
Ms. El Bahar: Thank you for the questions. In terms of the elements that were raised, the board of appeal would start operating as determined by a coming-into-force date. There are three coming-into-force dates that are currently listed in the legislation: The first one is for the creation of the board of appeal, the second one will be for the beginning of the operations of the board of appeal and the third one will be for the cessation of the first level of appeal to be heard at the Social Security Tribunal of Canada in the Employment Insurance section of the General Division.
In terms of the transition, there is aimed to be a transition period between the second coming-into-force date and the third coming-into-force date. That’s a transition period where appeals that have been received at the Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s General Division, in the Employment Insurance section, prior to the second coming-into-force date will continue to be heard up until the third coming-into-force date. There is a provision there with regard to the coming-into-force date.
In terms of the resources, there are provisions in the legislation that provide for the transfer of Social Security Tribunal of Canada members — who work part-time at the Employment Insurance section of the General Division — to the board of appeal under the same tenure and status that they currently have. In addition to that, the board of appeal will be appointing new Governor-in-Council appointees, as well as Canada Employment Insurance Commission appointees representing both workers and employers. That will be in terms of the transition.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. El Bahar.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for being with us today. My question is about Division 35, so I presume that’s directed to Mr. Cadieux — it’s about data around seasonal workers. I would like to know whether we know how many seasonal workers there are in Canada. Do we have data on proportional distribution across the country and the industries they work in?
The next logical question I have is this: Why are the additional five weeks limited to applicants from one of the 13 regions? What is it about those regions? Are there other regions that might be considered? Thank you.
Mr. Cadieux: Thank you for the questions. We do know how many seasonal workers there are across Canada. There are, approximately, just over 400,000 seasonal claimants nationally. Out of those, I would say that about 38% resided in the regions targeted by this measure, and this is based on information collected in the 2018 to 2021 pilot that was done prior to the introduction of this measure in the legislation.
In terms of your question regarding the distribution by industry, I do believe that I have a little bit of information here that I can share with you: The main industries that comprise seasonal workers are educational services; accommodation and food services; agriculture, fishing, forestry and hunting; manufacturing; and construction.
In terms of your question regarding why it is those 13 regions, they were selected because they had a higher proportion of seasonal workers in terms of a proportion of their workforce. They were also selected because they had a higher unemployment rate compared to the rest of Canada at the time they were selected, which was in 2017. Those regions were selected for the basis of the 2018 to 2021 pilot that was done for this measure. Those are the same regions that were selected back then; we kept the same regions now.
Senator Seidman: You said that 38% of those 400,000 workers are in the targeted regions. What about the rest of them? The 38% isn’t even 50%, so how do we understand this?
Mr. Cadieux: Those regions are targeted because those workers recognize that they have more difficulty finding a job during the off-season. First of all, there is a higher proportion of the workforce that is seasonal, and, second, it’s because of the higher unemployment rates in those regions. It recognizes that, and that’s why those regions are targeted.
The Chair: Mr. Cadieux, let me ask you a brief follow-up to Senator Seidman’s question. This committee is undertaking a study of temporary foreign workers in Canada, primarily temporary migrant workers. Can you confirm whether or not migrant workers who pay into Employment Insurance — as they must — will qualify for this extension of the benefits?
Mr. Cadieux: As long as they reside in one of those 13 regions, as long as they qualify for Employment Insurance regular benefits and as long as they meet the criteria that defines them as a seasonal worker, then, yes, they would qualify for those additional weeks of the benefits.
The Chair: That’s a lot of “as long as,” but we will delve into that during our study.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today. I believe my question should go to Mr. Leblanc at Employment and Social Development Canada in regard to Division 13.
Can you provide an example of the type of data that Employment and Social Development Canada will now have access to under this new division, and how it would be used for policy analysis and research?
And are Canadians aware that their personal information is being shared with other government agencies?
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for the questions. The first example that I would probably use would be total income. At the moment, only contributory income is being provided for the Canada Pension Plan — that is a narrow band of earnings that we use to calculate a benefit. We actually have no idea, relatively speaking, about the other sources of income that a person might have in retirement. I think that also answers the sorts of questions that we would be answering with that kind of data.
That being said, what we’re doing is re-establishing something that existed previously. It was basically viewed — from an interpretation of legislation — that this is a clarification to ensure that we have access to that data. Also, both Old Age Security and Employment Insurance already have access to this type of data, and are using it for the same types of purposes. Canadians are aware — they are informed, in general, when we do these sorts of things, that this type of information is gathered to improve these programs. There is no new announcement about this particular thing, especially given that it’s a reinstatement of something that existed previously.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is on Division 15. In 2021, I was part of that committee and we studied the old provisions. I see we’re going from 104 to 156 weeks of leave, which seems reasonable to me.
What was the process, what was the information or what motivated the change from 104 weeks to 156 weeks of leave?
Ms. Barrados: Thank you for the question. There were two reasons. First, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime recommended extending the leave. Second, experience with clients making applications showed us that in some cases, the two-year period was too short for them. The distress and everything that can happen in those situations were such that they needed more time to apply.
Senator Petitclerc: In 2021, according to testimony, even among the federal program’s workers, the benefit for parents of young victims of crime was not very well known. We made a recommendation about it in our committee report.
Have you seen any change? Did any methods or measures improve awareness of the program?
Ms. Barrados: We are still working with partners, community groups, to share information. Although this remains an issue, we are still trying to keep up communication.
Senator Petitclerc: So, do we do this through communications? We’re trying to broaden information a little bit to reach organizations and individuals, is that right?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, because we think individuals will look for access through community services and we should mainly communicate with organizations.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. El Bahar and is on Division 38, which will establish an employment insurance appeal board.
When creating the appeal board, what criteria will we use to appoint members? Will functional bilingualism be mandatory? Will the regulatory criteria be managed in a certain way, especially regarding bilingualism, when choosing people to be part of the appeal board?
Ms. El Bahar: When it comes to selecting individuals, they will fall into three categories. Some will be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and others by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.
When it comes to choosing individuals, selection of members will promote diversity, and bilingualism will be important. The criteria are not yet fully defined, but they will indeed emphasize diversity and representation of Canadian society, as well as bilingualism.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. El Bahar, since we’re talking about Governor-in-Council appointments — and there is a delay in appointments throughout the system — when do you expect the council to be operational based on previous trends?
Ms. El Bahar: At this point, we’re still working on the implementation timelines in terms of when the board of appeal will be operational. I’m not able to confirm at this time when it will be operational. We’re definitely looking into the appointment process. It is one of the critical factors, of course, for the implementation of the board of appeal, so it is a factor that we’re looking into in order to determine our implementation timelines.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Healey and Ms. Netten, if you wish to answer a question, please indicate this to me, and we will make sure you have an opportunity to do so.
Senator Burey: Hello, everyone. Thank you for coming here.
I am going to confine my questions to Division 15 relating to this new Canadian Benefit for Parents of Young Victims of Crime — well, it’s not new, but the bill has added some provisions.
What disaggregated data and information are available regarding the uptake of the leave and the related benefit? That would be the first question.
How many people were requiring additional leave beyond the 104 weeks, which led to you increasing it? You had spoken about the ombudsman making recommendations before, but how many people were involved?
The last question is this: How many parents were disentitled from leave when their children were thought to be party to the crime that resulted in their death or disappearance?
Ms. Barrados: Thank you for those questions. I want to clarify one point, namely, that the total window of time that a parent in this situation could apply for the benefit is being extended from two years to three years, but the benefit period is actually 35 weeks.
I don’t have the data that you have requested. However, we could go back to look if we do have program data on those questions.
I do have some information about how many parents have accessed the benefit. From the previous evaluation, we know that between September 2018 and November 2021, a total of 156 applications were received, 78 of which have been approved. As a separate piece of information, we know that for the fiscal year 2022-23, 40 grants were provided.
Senator Burey: Disaggregated data would be very important, seeing that 156 people applied and only 78 people were approved.
Following on that, and this is a bit of a twist: Now that the eligibility, meaning that parents and children who are over 14 years old —
The Chair: I apologize, but your time is over. I would love to give you more time because your questions are important, but we have very little time left.
Mr. Laliberté, you wanted to respond to a question. Would you let us know which particular question you wanted to respond to? I have to limit your answer.
[Translation]
Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission: Madam Chair, I just wanted to let you know I’m here, because you haven’t yet recognized me. I’m just making sure I will indeed have the privilege of being heard if necessary. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much. I apologize for overlooking your presence. Thank you so much for joining us.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here.
My question is about Division 35. It’s being extended by one year. Is the reason for the choice of one year due to an annually recurring rollover that you’ve put into place, hoping to see what happens with the economy? Is it based on economic projections? What’s the purpose of one year?
Mr. Cadieux: Thank you for the questions. The government chose to extend the measure by an additional year, as you pointed out. That being said, work continues on modernizing the Employment Insurance program, including finding a permanent approach to supporting seasonal industries and its workers. This work is informed by the feedback that we’ve heard during the 2021 and 2022 consultations on the Employment Insurance program, which, as I mentioned, includes a potential longer-term measure to support seasonal industries.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. Our expectation is that a year from now, when we see you again, you’ll have a program in place instead of another annual rollover?
Mr. Cadieux: Sorry, was your question whether one year from now, we will extend it again by one year?
Senator Kutcher: I was being facetious. What’s the timeline on having this done?
Mr. Cadieux: Work is under way right now. I cannot speak exactly to the timing for completion of that work and announcing those measures.
[Translation]
Mr. Laliberté: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Regarding the last point raised about the seasonal worker pilot project, by extending the pilot project for a sixth year, which is highly unorthodox, the government recognizes a structural problem in regions where seasonal industries have a strong presence. That being the case, the program was inadequate from the start. What I’m hearing now is that it’s even more inadequate due to changes made since it was created in 2018.
On that point, many groups from the Atlantic region, in Eastern Canada, argued there should be improvements made relatively quickly to the project. It could remain a pilot project, which would allow it to keep a certain flexibility.
Right now, because of all the uncertainty in the fishing industry in particular, as well as the side effect of low unemployment that cuts benefits for workers during the off-season, there’s a problem. In the fall, we will have a problem. It’s quite unfortunate the government didn’t seize the opportunity to at least improve the pilot project in the absence of a permanent solution. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberté.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses today. My question is with respect to Division 38 which creates the Employment Insurance board of appeal.
We’ll now have two divisions of appeal: the General Division, which is the first level of appeal; then there’s going to be a board of appeal. Doesn’t this make the General Division almost irrelevant in a sense? People will appeal — they’ll receive a decision that they don’t like, so they’ll go to the General Division, who may turn them down, and then they would automatically go to the Appeal Division.
Why are there two levels of appeal? Does this not make the General Division almost irrelevant?
Ms. El Bahar: Thank you very much for the questions.
In terms of the General Division, the Employment Insurance board of appeal will replace the General Division for the Employment Insurance first level of appeal. Essentially, there is a period of transition — of one year — during which both will operate in parallel. But once an appeal is filed, and once the board of appeal starts operating with the second coming-into-force date, they would be seized with the appeal. If it is filed before the board of appeal comes into place, then it is filed at the Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s Employment Insurance section of the General Division. They would not, effectively, operate in parallel. Appeals will only be heard at one of the two tribunals. The Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada would be the one responsible for hearing appeals that are appealed by the board of appeal.
Senator Dasko: There will not be two levels. There will just be one level. Is this a transition — two levels of appeal or one level of appeal?
Ms. El Bahar: It will be as it is currently. There will be two levels of appeal. There will be the first level of Employment Insurance appeals and then the second level of Employment Insurance appeals. It will continue to operate, but, effectively, the Employment Insurance board of appeal will replace the General Division, in the Employment Insurance section, of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
Senator Dasko: What were the issues with respect to the previous structure that led to the creation of this? If you could summarize, I’d like to understand why the changes were needed. Was there something deficient in the previous appeal process? If you could explain — if I have time.
The Chair: You don’t have time, but I’m going to allow that question. If we are confused, let me suggest that the public is confused.
Senator Dasko: Maybe everybody else knows, but I’m confused.
Ms. El Bahar: I know that my colleague Robert Lalonde is in the room. I will refer to Mr. Lalonde to be able to provide some information, and I believe that Commissioner Laliberté will be able to answer as well.
Robert Lalonde, Director, Individual Payments and On-Demand Services, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Service Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for your question, senator.
The biggest concern we heard from the previous tribunal was simply that it wasn’t tripartite. The intent with this new tribunal is to return to a tripartite model where government, employers and workers are represented on each panel making decisions for Employment Insurance matters.
Senator Dasko: I see; the previous one was just officials — is that it?
Mr. Lalonde: It was a one-member panel — it’s “one judge,” if I can say so.
Senator Dasko: What was wrong with that?
Mr. Lalonde: We would have to ask stakeholders. In general, concerns were raised, but I’m not in a position to comment on what those were.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lalonde. We have hands raised from both the Commissioner for Workers and the Commissioner for Employers. We’ll go to Ms. Healey first, perhaps, since you have not spoken yet.
Nancy Healey, Commissioner for Employers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission: Thank you. I wanted to add to what Mr. Lalonde and my colleague — the Commissioner for Workers — were saying. Mr. Laliberté has more history with this than I do; I have to ride on his coattails, but that’s fine.
I just wanted to say that there were concerns raised about how the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, which is just one official, was not a tripartite approach, and not regional in its approach. It was deemed — by both worker representatives and employer representatives — to not facilitate and encourage people to appeal.
As one of the senators said, she was on the Board of Referees, which was a tripartite model — it was a system that worked. That is a system that we wish to return to. I just wanted to reiterate that it is both the employer representatives and the worker representatives, both of whom are the contributors to the Employment Insurance program — the funders of the program — who call for this change.
Mr. Laliberté: I will not repeat what was said so eloquently, but I will add that it’s worth remembering that the old Board of Referees system was abolished without any assessment or discussion; this was basically done overnight. It did create a lot of frustration because the old system was widely appreciated. Then, people have been calling, essentially, for its return ever since it was abolished under the previous administration.
The argument at the time was a cost argument. I could delve into the details of that, but it was ultimately unconvincing — I don’t want to delve too much into the details of that unless this is something that interests you.
The Chair: Let’s delve into it.
Mr. Laliberté, I’m giving you a bit more time.
Mr. Laliberté: Basically, the assumptions that led to the creation of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada to replace the Board of Referees were pretty much untenable in terms of the caseload that the new structure would handle. As a result, there were great dysfunctions at the beginning because it was understaffed. The old structure — the Board of Referees — would cost $667 per appeal, and today, even with a great improvement in its performance, it’s still $2,662 per decision. That’s why I said that argument was ultimately spurious. Again, I could dive into far more levels of that onion.
The Chair: Thank you. We are already crying from peeling the onion. Thank you very much, colleagues. This brings us to the end of our first panel. I wish to thank all of the public servants and officials who have joined us and shared their perspectives and wisdom with us. We greatly appreciate it.
We will now proceed to our second panel. We welcome, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Michael Harvey, Vice President, Policy and International; and Diana Palmerin-Velasco, Senior Director, Future of Work. And, by video conference, we welcome Lily Chang, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. Thank you all for being with us today. I now invite you to provide opening remarks. Given our limited time, you will be limited to four minutes each. Ms. Palmerin-Velasco is taking the floor for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Diana Palmerin-Velasco, Senior Director, Future of Work, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Deputy Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today regarding certain divisions of Part 4 of Bill C-47.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents some 200,000 Canadian businesses, through more than 450 local, provincial and territorial chambers, plus 100 association members.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce already appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on May 16, where we expressed concerns about Budget 2023 and its lack of a clear strategy to attract investment for sustainable economic growth in Canada.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce generally supports the establishment of the Employment Insurance board of appeal, as articulated in Division 38 of Bill C-47. The institutional structures that underpin the Employment Insurance system are critical for a well-functioning system that meets the needs and expectations of Canadians. The establishment of a new independent tripartite board of appeal — to hear cases where claimants disagree with a Service Canada decision regarding their Employment Insurance claims — is an important step to strengthen the functioning of the system.
This is not the first time that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has made a pronouncement regarding the establishment of the Employment Insurance board of appeal, and we appreciate the government’s decision to hold further public consultations in response to concerns raised by us, as well as many other stakeholders and parliamentarians, over the legislation proposed under the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. We believe the establishment and administration of the Employment Insurance board of appeal, as articulated, now better address the main concerns raised last year. However, we would also like to raise two concerns.
Our first concern is the proposal that the executive head is to report regularly to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission — through the chairperson of the commission — on the overall performance of the board of appeal. To ensure that the Employment Insurance board of appeal adheres to the tripartite principles and framework that had been agreed upon before the onset of the pandemic, we would like to see the executive head reporting directly to the commission — and not through the chairperson, who is the Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada. In this regard, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of upholding the tripartite principles that are foundational to Canada’s Employment Insurance.
The second concern refers to the cost of the board of appeal, and the potential unfair burden this could have on Canadian businesses. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the five-year cost of the Employment Insurance board of appeal will amount to $132 million. As outlined in this cost estimate, “The necessary funding is expected to be covered by the Employment Insurance Operating Account (EIOA) and the cost to be recuperated by increasing Employment Insurance (EI) premiums by less than 1 cent.” The Employment Insurance board of appeal structure, as outlined in Division 38, could end up costing significantly more than the estimated cost, and not feasible to sustain on the Employment Insurance premium increase of less than one cent. Employers are invested in the financial viability of the Employment Insurance program, and it is for this reason that we would like to mitigate any further pressures on the Employment Insurance system and additional premium increases.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to appear, and we would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco. Ms. Chang, the floor is yours.
Lily Chang, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Lily Chang, and I am the Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. I’m honoured to speak to you today from the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input on this important subject.
Division 38 of Part 4 creates the new Employment Insurance board of appeal. These provisions are a big improvement over what was included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 — Bill C-19. We are grateful that the government took steps to improve the draft legislation. However, there are still several important and necessary improvements to the legislation that the committee should make.
First, the bill requires the executive head to report to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, but through the chairperson of the commission. We feel that this is unnecessary language, and will allow the department to continue to withhold, manage and selectively provide information to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s Commissioner for Workers and Commissioner for Employers when it is convenient to do so. This is a source of continuing frustration and dissatisfaction for the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliates.
Shutting out the Commissioner for Employers and the Commissioner for Workers also played a key role in the oversight and accountability problems that plagued the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, particularly in its early years. This committee should make the board of appeal answerable to the entire Canada Employment Insurance Commission, including both the worker representatives and the employer representatives.
Second, Bill C-47 does not establish in-person hearings by default. Instead, it leaves the choice of format to the appellant. An in-person hearing in the appellant’s own region is essential to a client-centred appeal system. Our experience is that it is best for the appellants to be heard in person, where they are best able to present their case. As well, an in-person hearing gives panel members a better opportunity to determine an appellant’s credibility. The existing language in Bill C-47 may cause appellants to inadvertently choose a virtual hearing, and this could end up undermining their own best interest. Clause 43.16(2) should be changed to read, “An appeal is to be heard in person unless the appellant selects another format, as provided for in the regulations.”
Finally, I want to touch upon the five-week pilot. The extension of the pilot recognizes the struggle many workers in seasonal industries face in accumulating enough hours to qualify for Employment Insurance — but the five-week pilot is insufficient. While improving the unemployment situation in targeted regions is welcome, it is harder for workers to qualify for Employment Insurance. When they do qualify, they receive far fewer weeks of entitlement, at a lower level of benefit. We recommend an increase in the number of extra weeks of entitlement from 5 weeks to 15 weeks — up to a maximum total of 35 weeks — and this is to ensure that workers do not go through jobless spells without income support.
Employment in seasonal industries typically provides about 14 weeks of work. Fourteen weeks at 35 hours works out to 490 hours. Given that many workers cannot meet the current hours‑of-work threshold, the government should implement a 420‑hour entrance requirement.
Finally, we want to see benefits calculated on the 12 or 14 best weeks of highest earnings. At the moment, the variable best weeks used to calculate benefits in most of the targeted regions stand at 21 or 22 weeks.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to share our views.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. We will now proceed to questions.
I would like to ask both the employer and worker representatives in the room to clarify something for me — because both of you agreed that the reporting structure is not what you would wish it to be. I’m sure that both of you — the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce — have made representations to the government and the minister. I’m imagining that you have done so. What has the response been? What is the rationale for this reporting structure through the deputy minister?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: I would say that from our perspective, as well as labour’s perspective, the tripartite principles and framework are crucial. These executive heads of the board of appeals should report to the Commissioner for Employers and the Commissioner for Workers.
We do see an issue, perhaps, with conflict of interest in reporting through the deputy minister.
The Chair: I understand that, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco. I’m asking you whether you know what the government’s rationale is for reporting through the deputy minister.
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: No, I don’t.
The Chair: You don’t. How about you, Ms. Chang?
Ms. Chang: Yes, if you’re asking me the same question about the government’s rationale, I don’t know what that is. You would probably have to ask the government to explain that, but we certainly agree with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that it is best to have a tripartite process, and that all parties receive the same information at the same time so they can all be on the same page.
Senator Cordy: My questions were exactly what the chair was asking, so thank you for clarifying that. If we’re going to call it “tripartite,” then the three bodies should actually be part of the reporting process. I think you all have raised a really good point.
I’m looking at the cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer — this is from your report, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco — spoke about how the cost will be recouped by increasing Employment Insurance premiums by less than one cent. We heard from the previous witnesses that the cost per case — and I didn’t jot it down, so these are just approximations — has gone from about $600 when it was the previous Board of Referees to about $2,000 when it was the one-person panel. One would have thought the cost would be less with one person.
Did you take that into account when you were looking at the costs of implementing the new tripartite?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: We would expect some costs in order to adhere to these tripartite principles. However, I’m taking the experience of what happened when we transitioned from the Board of Referees to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. We don’t have the details to anticipate precise costs, but we would expect there would be some savings that could cover the costs of the board of appeal — coming from the Social Security Tribunal of Canada — and that this board of appeal would be as efficient as it could be with resources.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. Did you have anything to add to that, Ms. Chang?
Ms. Chang: Yes, I guess I don’t understand all of the calculations, but it is my understanding that the previous panel was more cost-efficient than the one-person panel. I don’t know why that is. However, I certainly think that, moving forward, it’s important — cost is also important, of course — for appellants to have the best process so that when they are dealing with their application for benefits, they are not just facing a bureaucracy, but also facing people who will understand and make the best decision in terms of their appeal.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m struggling with this as well, Senator Cordy. I have to assume that a one-person panel would take more time than a three-person panel. But that’s an assumption, so who knows?
Senator Seidman: Thank you. That’s an interesting assumption indeed.
Thank you for being with us, and for your presentation. I’ll continue on Division 35 about seasonal workers. The major syndicates in Quebec made a presentation — a briefing note as well — to the House of Commons, and they suggested that instead of basing the determination of whether a job is seasonal on the worker, and requiring the claimant to have a history of three benefit periods in the last five years, there should be a new identifier on the record of employment for employers of seasonal workers or for a seasonal layoff. They argue that it would be both simpler for Service Canada and fairer for the workers.
I would like to know what you think of that proposal.
Michael Harvey, Vice President, Policy and International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: I can only say that we haven’t given much thought to the issue, so we don’t have a position on it.
Senator Seidman: Okay. How about Ms. Chang?
Ms. Chang: Yes, we would agree with that — introducing a new reason for separation in the record of employment as a seasonal layoff would streamline the administration of the claims, and make the process fairer to workers.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. My question is for Ms. Chang regarding Division 38. Does the Canadian Labour Congress have an opinion on whether the proposed Employment Insurance board of appeal could, in fact, reduce barriers to participation, increase accessibility for appellants and improve upon the former General Division?
Ms. Chang: Yes, we do believe that this new board of appeal — with its tripartite structure — would actually be a better process. It would allow for better representation, particularly with the regional component. However, we also believe that it is best for appellants to have the first option of appearing in person — with virtual not being the default selection. The default format would be in person because we do think that is the best way for people to represent their interests. As we know, verbal communication represents about 10%. Most communication is additional — like body language — so I think it’s important that we have in-person hearings as much as possible, and for that to be the default.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Moodie, I understand that we must apologize to you. We overlooked your question during the last round. I apologize; therefore, you will have double the time.
Senator Moodie: I have no questions. I cede to my colleague.
The Chair: Colleagues, should the table overlook your desire to ask a question, just jump up and put your hand up. I am really sorry about this.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being with us. My question is a follow-up to Senator Osler’s question to Ms. Chang. You talked about better experiences when being face to face with appellants.
Do you have any data on hearing outcomes that appellants have experienced between in-person hearings and online hearings? If you could share that data with us, I would be really interested.
Are there any groups that are particularly disadvantaged by not having in-person sessions?
Ms. Chang: I don’t have any data other than to indicate that this is what we have heard from workers: It’s better for them to appear in person. As I mentioned earlier, verbal communication represents about 10%. You get a fuller picture when in person — there is important information to build trust, and to demonstrate authenticity and respect for each other. It’s important for us that people can appear in person.
Where the board of appeal appears in person, I think it will allow them, as a tripartite structure, to work better together as well — because they are also appearing in person, learning from each other, developing relationships and working with respect. That’s why we believe that is the best option.
I’m sorry; please remind me what your second question is in regard to.
Senator Kutcher: Who would be particularly disadvantaged by not being able to appeal in person?
Ms. Chang: Yes, for anyone who has difficulty with communication — and it doesn’t have to be a person with a disability of any kind — I think you get your best message across when you’re able to present using all of your body language and your verbal language as well.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, did you want to weigh in on that question?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: We don’t really have an opinion on that. Thank you.
The Chair: My question to all three witnesses is this: What recommendations for data collection do you have for the departments on Divisions 13, 14, 15, 35 and 38?
Ms. Chang: I’m sorry; I don’t really have any recommendations about the data collection.
Mr. Harvey: We haven’t examined the issue.
Senator Dasko: I would like to follow up with Ms. Chang on the topic of in-person appearance. Is appearing on a platform, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, et cetera, considered to be in person?
Ms. Chang: No, that’s not an in-person appearance — that’s virtual. Being in person would mean being in the same room at the same time. I recognize that I’m appearing virtually before you today. I think it’s important to have a virtual option, but we do think that the default should be the in-person appearance — where one can communicate not only with what you see on the screen in a small square, but also with what you see via body language, in order to determine the credibility of what is being presented in a much better fashion.
Senator Dasko: That’s interesting because when I see you on the screen, for example, and you see me, we communicate body language to each other. We communicate credibility or authenticity, I assume. I can understand that you might be concerned if it’s purely electronic, and people are submitting forms. That’s not very user-friendly.
During COVID, although a lot of us were frustrated with these platforms, we learned that they are extremely valuable for communicating with people in almost every setting, including with medical professionals and others.
I’m a little surprised that you wouldn’t see this as a really acceptable way to communicate.
Ms. Chang: If I could respond, it is an acceptable way, but we would prefer the default to be an in-person appearance because we feel that it would be much more meaningful — as opposed to people being corralled into a virtual hearing.
We are concerned that if things were to progress where virtual is the easiest format, there could be some impact down the road for the need to have regional representation for the board of appeal members as well. There could be all kinds of other impacts. It’s important for us to have regional representation, and to afford people the best possible ability to present their case.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, in your opening remarks, you said the pilot project temporarily includes five additional weeks. You suggested it could maybe go up to 15 weeks, if I understood correctly.
Mr. Harvey: Actually, the representative for the Canada Labour Congress said that, not us.
Senator Petitclerc: That’s right, but I want to know what you think of the proposal. On the contrary, should we instead try to work on a solution that goes beyond a pilot project and becomes permanent? How do you think it could come about, possibly?
Mr. Harvey: Unfortunately, we have no idea, because we haven’t studied the issue. One does not improvise before a parliamentary committee. We have no opinion on the matter.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: That will make for a good observation.
Thank you so much to our witnesses — all three of you — for being with us in person and virtually. We will briefly continue our meeting in camera for observations, but first, many thanks again to Ms. Chang, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco and Mr. Harvey.
(The committee continued in camera.)