Human Resources Committee on March 3rd, 2011

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

Mr. Bélanger, you didn't have quite enough time at the end. I think there was another minute or so. I was wondering whether you had any specific recommendations or if there was something you wanted to add that you didn't have time for in your presentation.

[Yvon Bélanger]

My first comment concerned people's ability to be represented.

Now I would like to emphasize that, when a worker asks to be represented, a more meticulous job has to be done. A person who represents himself will do his work when he receives the appeal docket and has to go and pick up his documents. Normally, that's suitable and we also guide them a little.

However, when there are submissions, there are firm deadlines, for both the representative and the claimant. If we go and pick up medical documents, testimony, have an appointment with legal aid or whatever, that becomes involuntary for all the parties. If the claimant himself requests a postponement, that's legitimate. If he wants to delay the hearing, that's his choice.

It's legitimate for the commission to want to have people proceed as soon as possible so that they can be heard. That's a good thing. However, if the person is prepared to delay the hearing in order to mount a better defence and secure better representation, that's legitimate as well. If there are unavoidable factors because we want to do a good job of defence, we're responsible for that. When the chairs make a peremptory decision, we have to appear. We nevertheless ask for another postponement, even though that's perhaps being a little stubborn. If it's a decision that concerns the decision, we'll challenge everything before the umpire, which results in needless costs for the commission.

I would recommend slightly more flexible time periods in this regard when claimants are being represented.

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

Mr. Bélanger, thank you very much for that.

I just have about 30 seconds left, and my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, who does a lot of work on EI, has a point of clarification.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

What kind of welcome is that?

It's just a point of clarification. Did I hear correctly earlier when it was suggested at this committee that the commission or the department has no right to appeal if a board of referees says yes to a particular person who appeals? Does that make sense?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Your question or your point of clarification is whether the commission has the right to appeal the decision?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, the department, Service Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Well, the commission.... I think there are three, right?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Sure, but--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

So they do have the right to appeal.

Is that correct?

[Yvon Bélanger]

Yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'm not sure if you have that impression or not.

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

I do, but there was a suggestion that only if a worker loses, he should be allowed to appeal, and not the commission. That's not the way it is, but—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

There was a suggestion of that, you're saying.

[A voice]

Yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I apologize. Because I know they do appeal quite often.

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

Of course, and that's why the percentages would go up if only the loser could appeal. Otherwise--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right. Take it outside, gentlemen. There we go.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I get that a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, everyone. I think that's a good clarification.

Madame Thaï Thi Lac, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

I'm very pleased to be here with you today. I want to thank my colleague for agreeing to allow me to question witnesses from my region. I'm also pleased to meet with other organizations whose mission is to work for people who are in need and who are waiting for their employment insurance benefits.

I'm going to ask you a question to which I'd like to get a brief answer. My other questions will be asked one after the other.

As an organization whose main mandate is to assist people who are deprived of employment insurance or who have problems with the employment insurance system, do you receive any funding from the federal government, apart from the summer student programs?

[Sylvain Bergeron]

No.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Even though your one and only mission is to defend unemployed workers, it's quite surprising that you don't receive any money from the federal government in order to defend them, unlike the commission people. Thank you very much.

I'm going to ask you three questions. Then I'll invite you to answer them.

The first question concerns a question that Mr. Komarnicki raised. Unless I'm mistaken, the statistics on unanimous judgments are not forwarded to your organizations despite the fact that your request them. Is that true? Would it be desirable for you to be able to obtain them? Would you make that recommendation to us?

Second, when someone agrees to have his case heard before only two board members, if one rules in his favour and the other against him, will the case automatically go to the other tribunal? Once again, that would be distinctly to the worker's disadvantage.

I believe that employment insurance was designed first and foremost to enable unemployed workers to acquire the means to go back and look for work. However, the time that a worker spends preparing his appeal is not devoted to looking for work. That's quite counter-productive and it goes against the primary mission of the employment insurance system, which is to ask a worker to look for work. Instead they're being asked to prepare cases that will be presented at a hearing.

Are there any cases in which, after waiting 14 months, a worker has won his case when he had already found employment? In those cases, since he would have been back at work for some time, has he had to repay employment insurance benefits to which he was entitled? Has this scenario occurred in cases that you have defended?

[Sylvain Bergeron]

We really would like to have the statistics. In my work, I represent workers before the board of referees and before the umpire. I also prepare dockets for the Federal Court of Appeal. However, we also have a political component. We're calling for improvements. That would enable us to show that what we're advancing is true. Ultimately, we would have support.

In our region, we don't have this problem of representation by two members of a board of referees. However, it is true that a situation can arise in which there are only two persons. Earlier I cited the example of a chairperson and an employer representative who are often there. If those two individuals are still together, the third always dissents. We know we always lose when those two are there. We know we'll then have to go before another body, in that case the umpire.

It's true that preparation requires time on the claimant's part. I was surprised earlier to hear that there were people who had 10 or 15 days. I never have more than seven days before the hearing. When I receive the notice and the docket, I have seven days to meet the claimant. If he's found a job, we forget that. We find it hard to meet. I work day and night.

I can tell you about 14-month waiting times. I'll briefly give you an example that I had to deal with. It was the case of a forest worker. We had appeared four times before the board of referees, four times before the umpire and once before the Federal Court of Appeal, and, in spite of everything, the commission will be appealing again. That person has to pay.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bélanger, could you give us some—