I'll stop there. I'll just say that in the procedures, you have to respect some rules of justice. The impartiality is a rule. If you say in the newspaper, “I am against the employment insurance system”, you are not impartial.
Pardon me, but I'm going to go back to my first language.
Earlier, we briefly mentioned the way information is manipulated in certain cases we defend. The commission prepares the docket and the board of referees reviews it. We appeal, but it's the commission that prepares the docket.
In the case of one person who went back to part-time studies while receiving employment insurance benefits, the commission held that, according to case law, unavailability could not be rebutted except in exceptional circumstances. However, that's false. In fact, the case law states that it can be rebutted "by proof of exceptional circumstances". An entire list of circumstances has been established in case law. The dockets are very often manipulated.
I cite case law in all cases involving misconduct issues. The commission and the board of referees stated, because it was written in the docket, that the judge had dismissed the case. However, in the well-known decision in CUB 28711, the judge wrote that the claimant's appeal was allowed and the decision to disqualify him from receiving benefits was rescinded. So this was a procedural matter. When a board of referees relies on incorrect information, you're certain to lose. This is another issue related to the commission's influence.
Earlier it was mentioned that people sometimes try to get in touch with us. And yet, the opposite is the case. The commission people never try to call me. In 26 years of practice, I have never received a phone call from an officer. They don't want to speak to me. I addressed the issue of influence. When the chair of one board of referees told me at a hearing that a commission representative had come to see him and that I would have to submit more recent case law, that's illegal. That's written in the role of the board of referees and in the Employment Insurance Act. The commission must not interfere in cases. If these people could show that the case law I submit to a board of referees has been overturned by a superior body, they could do it in the context of their docket, but they shouldn't call the chair of a board of referees. That's undue influence.
As for the EI compassionate care benefit, I find it hard to understand how a board of referees can act when a case involving the code of ethics of the physicians of Quebec is submitted to it. According to a letter written by the head of the order of physicians, no one is entitled to use a document stating that a person will die within 26 weeks. The commission stated that, if it was not proven that that individual would die within the next 26 weeks, he would not be entitled to benefits. The physician does not even have a legal right to do that. Rules are imposed and the board does not take the evidence into account.
You have my brief, which contains recommendations. The idea is to make the board of referees system independent from the commission. In closing, I'm going to read you a sentence from a document that I use a lot when I defend my cases. Entitled Introduction to Tribunal Proceedings in Employment Insurance, this document is used to train members of the board of referees. It is written by Philippe Garant and his brother, two experts on tribunal proceedings.