Madam Chair, there is perhaps a point of order I wanted to raise. Before the witnesses testify, I'd like to just clarify some things. As you mentioned today, it was pursuant to the standing order: we're studying the procedures and practices of the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.
But the motion—and I'm reading the English translation that Monsieur Lessard presented to this committee—states: “That...the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities study the procedures and practices for appealing a decision by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees, and that it report its findings...”.
What we're looking at is talking about the procedures and practices for appealing, so the testimony should be around that issue, and not a whole bunch of other issues. I think that needs to be clear. Those are the perimeters of what this testimony should be. I read the Library of Parliament analysis of what some of the parties might be standing for, and of course they may not be speaking exactly along these lines. It was very general in nature, and not to do specifically with the motion. I think the witnesses should be cautioned that this is what we're dealing with.
Then, I noted that as one of the witnesses—and I've raised the matter sort of indirectly with Mr. Savage and with Mr. Martin, who is not here but is being replaced by Mr. Godin--perhaps somewhat unusually, we have Bertrand Desrosiers, who is a senior assistant to a member of Parliament, Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, who would be actually questioning her own assistant, which might provide some discomfort in itself. If it doesn't to her, it may to others, simply because the witness works for the MP, and of course I'm not sure whether there would be any biases or not in terms of how the testimony may go. But that's a matter of concern.
The other thing I would like to mention is that if this particular witness intends to relate to any specific cases, there may be some issues with confidentiality and other matters like that. And if this particular witness were to testify, it would have to be on matters that were directly related to the procedure and practices for appealing and nothing else.
So first of all, I guess I'd like to raise for the chair and others the question of whether or not it is appropriate that Mr. Bertrand testify, and then, if it is thought as a committee that he ought to, that it needs to have perimeters, somehow, or to be delineated to be sure that it is in that narrow area, and not beyond.
