Human Resources Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Sylvain Bergeron]

Yes.

You're mixing up two different things. There's the moment when the individual files his appeal and the time that elapses before that person can be heard before the employment insurance board of referees. Very often that time is really too long because the commission hangs on to the dockets. It should be shortened, but we must also be given more time and we should avoid allowing the clerk to have only seven days of notice to give us. We receive the appeal docket at the same time as the clerk—in our area, at least—that is seven days before the hearing date.

It's unfortunate that I have to do that quickly. I work with the CSST in the areas of social assistance and industrial and automobile accidents and with the victims of criminal acts. So there's a good chance that those seven notice days are already being devoted to another tribunal.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay. Good. I appreciate the clarification and just getting really specific on that here.

So I wonder in view of that if we have any intent to have the clerks in who actually.... Maybe there are reasons--maybe there are not--why they take so long in giving only a seven-day notice. We are having department people in. Are we having in any people who work on the ground out there, from out in the regions and so on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Do you mean actual members of the referee boards?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Well, the clerks and the administrative people. I'm not talking just the high-level bureaucrats who we'll have here. Are we having any of those other people who can explain why or what the glitches are?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Well, at this point, they haven't been on the witness list, but if that's who the committee would like to hear from, we can certainly see if we can—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Yes. Maybe the bureaucrats can answer that question, but it does seem to be a bit of a problem, obviously, and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

So you think it might be useful to have the actual—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Yes, a clerk, an administrative person, if the bureaucrats allow it, or if we can have them in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll make note of that, Mr. Vellacott, and see if we can do that.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You still have three minutes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is there anyone from the government side?

Mr. Casson.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would just like to ask a question. I don't think it was this panel. I think it was the one previous to this that indicated that the actual people who sit on the board, one of the three, calls the client before the meeting, talks to him, and tries to influence their decision to go ahead. Has it been your experience that the people on these appeal boards have done that type of thing?

[Yvon Bélanger]

Please repeat your question. I don't understand the question.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

What we heard earlier was that one of the referees actually called one of the people who was going to be there to appeal, before the meeting took place, to try to dissuade them from appealing. I believe that's what the blues will say.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

It was either that or the commission. I'm not sure.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Or maybe the commission. But have you ever experienced that in your dealings?

[Yvon Bélanger]

I've never had any knowledge of that.

[Sylvain Bergeron]

No, not the members of the board. It also seems to me that that's not what I heard the people in the first panel of witnesses say.

Perhaps the commission people try to call them. I always warn the claimants. I know their interview techniques since I've received the same training as they have. I know we can say what we want to someone. People therefore don't have a right to speak to the commission people, but they sometimes try.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Well, I appreciate your clarifying that.

[Yvon Bélanger]

We often ask the officers or the commission to talk to us first from the moment a representative is assigned to a case. Unfortunately, it has previously happened that an officer who needed additional information after the appeal—he was doing a second check after the appeal—directly called the claimant. They redid some checks together to see whether they could change the first negative decision. That's not what I prefer. I prefer the officer to call me and ask me questions. I check with the claimant and I subsequently call back the officer responsible for the case.

In some cases, in making checks regarding a decision of this kind after winning before the board of referees, I've seen the applicant obtain a new unfavourable decision or a disqualification as a result of the discussion we had to resolve the period recovered. So the worker was penalized once again as a result of a statutory technicality.

After the second meeting at the board of referees, while once again checking the period that had been recovered, we found that the worker had been disqualified again on another technicality. Throughout the procedure, the worker had an underlying psychological health problem. So the officer could tell him virtually anything without wanting to. In all instances, we won the three cases using the same basic argument. The problem was a major depression. That's why we ask that representation be respected by the officers handling the docket.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, both of you, for clarifying that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I have a quick question I want to ask the witnesses. You referred to the location where the hearings are being held at Service Canada and you identified that as a problem.

Where you do suggest these hearings take place, if not at Service Canada centres, and who would be paying for these spaces? Would it still be something that would be provided by the federal government's budget? But would that still give an impartial impression...? I'm just wondering where you would suggest they be held, if not at Service Canada centres.

Also, is it the same throughout Canada? Is every one of the hearings held at the Service Canada centre? Is that correct?

[Yvon Bélanger]

Consider the example of the Saint-Hyacinthe region. There are a large number of locations. The former CSST offices have small hearing rooms. There are those of the court house and offices in other buildings in the region that could be available to hold these hearings. They have the required equipment, recording devices, telephones, etc. There are rooms in certain restaurants and hotels in the region. It's not very costly. A lot of community meetings are held in those kinds of rooms. You know there aren't a lot of full pockets in the community sector. So I believe that would be a solution. That would genuinely reassure the claimants.