First of all, I would like to apologize for being late. I had a little problem. I got lost.
I am the coordinator of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, a Quebec network of groups representing the unemployed in Quebec. We have some 15 members in Quebec. They are called upon to represent citizens and claimants before the boards of referees.
One of my colleagues was supposed to be here with me today. Unfortunately, he was unable to come. So I will be passing on what he wanted to tell you today.
There are problems with the boards of referees. However, I would first like to emphasize that our members appreciate the quite informal nature of the board of referees and the fact that the procedure does not involve too much red tape and is thus more readily accessible to citizens.
With regard to the problems, there is the issue of training for members of the boards of referees. We wonder about the fact that training is given by the Employment Insurance Commission. For that reason, there may be a lack of neutrality or impartiality among members of the boards of referees. We also wonder how the members are appointed to those boards, on what basis and in accordance with what criteria.
There are also concerns regarding the decisions rendered. They are usually rendered the same day. We wonder whether enough time is devoted to writing the decisions. In fact, we often feel that the reports are incomplete. For example, following a decision, the board often does not say in its written report why a certain item of evidence was not considered. Ultimately, the decisions are not sufficiently substantiated or clear enough. There is a lack of evidence. That is what I have been told.
Our member groups also see a high turnover among staff of the boards of referees and they wonder why. In Montreal, among other places, there is really continuous staff turnover. Terms are not renewed. That may result in problems because it's often experienced people who leave. Their terms are not renewed and we therefore may wind up with people who have less experience. We wonder why these positions are not renewed.
We also suspect a lack of objectivity and impartiality on the part of certain members of the boards of referees. Some of our member organizations have told me on a number of occasions that they could predict who was going to win or lose a case before the board of referees based on the individuals sitting on it. For example, if such and such a person chairs the board, they know there will be virtually nothing to do. In certain cases as well—for example, in challenging a dismissal for misconduct—some know that, if such and such a member sits on the board of referees, the case will be lost because all misconduct cases are lost before those persons in particular. So some questions arise concerning the neutrality of members of the board of referees.
That's virtually all I had to say.