Human Resources Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[An. hon. member]

Not as well.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I didn't hit that mark very often in high school, I can tell you. That's pretty good.

Here's what I want to get a sense of. You mentioned the issue of a formal hearing versus an informal hearing. These hearings are really meant to be informal, to provide some kind of comfort level for the people who are claiming.

One of the things we want to do here is come up with some recommendations on how we can improve the process. I want to ask Monsieur Martin a question, but I think what I'm hearing from you is that there should be more informality, more comfort for the workers, so that we can get that number up to 98%.

[Catherine Gendron]

That could be possible. We have individual cases as well. In the case of certain boards of referees, everything works well and the chair ensures that the board remains informal. Over the years, however, we've seen some become very official, as in the example I gave you.

We hope the board of referees will stay the way it should be. We would like it to remain unofficial so that claimants are comfortable giving their testimony. In some cases, involving voluntary leaving as a result of psychological harassment, that can be difficult. Individuals must be in an environment and context that make them as comfortable as possible. So the board must stay the way it should be.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Martin, I wasn't going to ask you this, but I am now: would your numbers be approximately the same in your experience of how successful people are when they go before the board of referees?

[Guy Martin]

I would say that always depends on the boards of referees. Generally the success rates are quite high and can easily reach over 50%. That obviously depends on the regions and the boards of referees. It should also be said that people appeal much less than they used to. In other words, when people appeal it's because they generally have quite a good case. That's what explains the success rates before the boards of referees.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Very well.

One of the things you mentioned was that there have been a lot of occasions where, instead of having three members, one for perhaps conflict of interest or for some other reasons--

You're okay for translation?

[Guy Martin]

It's okay.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay.

You mentioned that in a lot of cases hearings are delayed, particularly outside the major centres, because one of the board of referees can't make the hearing. Do you have a specific recommendation as to how we could fix that?

[Guy Martin]

The hearings aren't held outside the centre; they take place in the same location. However, a board member may not be able to sit because he is in conflict of interest in the case. The individual may come from the same union as the claimant or the employer representative, or employer's assessor to the board of referees may come from the same company as the employer involved in the case. We simply suggest that the cases be assigned in advance, not the day of the hearing or two days earlier. If they are assigned one week in advance, that enables people to determine whether there is a problem, whether they can sit on such and such a case and, if necessary, whether they should be replaced because they are in conflict of interest.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That makes a lot of sense. I understand that. I think it's very sensible.

Chair, are we hearing from the department in this study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We are, the next time that we meet on this.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. I wonder whether we could ask the department to come with some statistics on the percentage of success of appeals and things like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, let's see whether the department can bring some statistics on the level of success, according to their records.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Madame Beaudin, you have six minutes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, madam and gentlemen, for being here to discuss this important issue.

First, I have a few questions in order to put everything you've said in context. This may seem clear, but there are nevertheless a lot of details. I'd like us all to be in agreement.

My questions will focus first on the operation side. The board of referees reports to the Employment Insurance Commission. If a decision is made by the board of referees, can an employee or an employer go before the umpire? Have I understood that so far?

Without saying who appoints the chair, I believe it's important to know who sits on the board of referees. Are they lawyers? In general, who makes up the board of referees? Where do those people come from?

[Réal Labarre]

There's one union member. He may be an accountant or a lawyer from the chamber of commerce. These are people from the general public.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

There's one union member, one member who represents the employer.

[Réal Labarre]

And the chair who represents the government.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Do these people receive training?

[Réal Labarre]

Yes, they receive it from the Employment Insurance Commission.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

How long does their training last?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I think this goes to the procedures. Madame Beaudin, I think—

Mr. Komarnicki has a point of order.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let me make my point of order and you can rule however you wish on it.

The study is with respect to the procedures and practices for appealing a decision. It's not how the board is composed or what goes on inside a hearing; that's not the scope of the report. It's with respect to the process for appealing: what the procedures and the practices are for appealing a decision-- by the employment insurance board. That's how narrow it is, and that's how narrow Mr. Lessard had it.

This witness is going beyond that in talking about the inner workings of people in terms of how they are appointed, how they are educated. That's not part of the study. Now, it could potentially be part of the study, but it's not part of this study, and I just want to raise that again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That's fair enough. Let us try to remain within the scope; it is very narrow.

Thank you so much.