A. Processing Claims

Service Canada is responsible for processing EI claims. To apply for EI benefits an online application must be completed. Once the application has been submitted and accepted, the first payment should be made within 28 days of the date that the application and required documents were received.[123]

However, a number of witnesses who work to support individuals who have lost their jobs told the Committee that, in practice, many unemployed people often have trouble reaching Service Canada staff to discuss their claims, particularly by telephone. Moreover, many wait much longer than 28 days after they apply to receive their benefits.

In their reference document, the CEIC’s Commissioner for Workers states that “one of the most common complaints my stakeholders and I hear on a daily basis is the frustration workers encounter when trying to get in touch with a Service Canada agent.”[124] In addition, statistics provided by PSAC in their brief indicate that, between April and December 2015, the average wait time for 297,586 EI applicants was 39 days.[125]

Sandra Guevara-Holguin, Advocate at the Community Unemployment Help Centre, made the following statement to the Committee regarding claim processing times:

I have at least 70 active files right now, and all of them are delayed: four months—to hear from them, to seek a decision—for all of them.[126]

The CEIC’s Commissioner for Workers also notes that the loss of regional EI liaison agents, who, only a few years ago, were available to union representatives and advocates who assist claimants with their EI applications, is a top complaint and frustration for those who represent claimants.[127]

While a number of witnesses expressed their appreciation for the measures to improve EI service delivery announced in Budget 2016, many question whether these will be enough to achieve the desired results, suggesting that additional resources must be allocated to this purpose.[128]

Among the recommendations made by witnesses who called for better EI service delivery was to find ways to improve service standards, including by increasing the number of trained Service Canada agents and making it easier to contact them, thereby decreasing the time it takes to process claims, as well as by reinstating regional EI liaison agents.

The Committee recognizes that it is very important for EI claimants to promptly receive the assistance they need to complete their applications. It is also critical that their claims be processed in a reasonable time frame so that those eligible for benefits are paid as quickly as possible, and those ineligible are informed as soon as possible so that they can plan appropriately. Accordingly, the Committee makes the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Committee recommends that the federal government provide Service Canada with the resources required so that:

• they can handle the vast majority of calls and in-person visits quickly;
• they endeavour to make the first payment in the 28 days following the date the application was completed, in order to meet the established service standards.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Committee recommends that the federal government reinstate the system of regional employment insurance liaison agents to improve support for unemployed individuals who wish to apply or have applied for benefits.

B. Complaint Handling

Individuals whose claims have been denied are informed by Service Canada, by mail or by telephone, of the reasons they are ineligible to receive EI benefits. Those who disagree with the decision rendered may request a reconsideration of their claim. This process is required prior to filing any appeal to the Social Security Tribunal General Division. In addition to a refusal of EI benefits, the other situations that allow for a request for a reconsideration are as follows:

• a request to repay benefits;
• receipt of a warning letter; and
• imposition of a penalty.[129]

1. Creation of the Social Security Tribunal

On 1 April 2013, the Social Security Tribunal (SST) was created to handle appeals of decisions relating to the EI program, as well as those pertaining to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS). The SST consists of a General Division and an Appeal Division. The General Division has two sections: one deals with the CPP and OAS, while the other handles complaints regarding EI decisions.[130] In the past, contested EI decisions were first reviewed by the Board of Referees and then, in the case of appeals of the Board’s decision, heard by an umpire.[131]

Paul Thompson of ESDC explained to the Committee that the primary change in the EI appeal process was the introduction of a reconsideration of applications process before clients can file an official appeal with the Tribunal. Benoît Long added that as a result of this reconsideration process, the number of appeals has declined by 85%:

That means there are fewer appeals simply because we're calling claimants directly before we deny a claim, to make sure they understand, and in case there are changes in their cases. That’s helped tremendously at that front end.[132]

In her testimony, Marie-Hélène Arruda of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi offered a different interpretation of the 85% decrease in the number of appeals:

We have also noted that the number of appeals has declined by 85% and that only 15% of unemployed workers who receive a negative decision following an administrative review end up taking their case to the Social Security Tribunal. MASSE believes that this mechanism discriminates against unemployed workers and discourages them from asserting their right to benefits. The mechanism, then, is clearly problematic.[133]

In fact, most of the witnesses appearing before the Committee raised issues regarding the SST’s handling of appeals. Concerns expressed related to:

1. the far lower number of appeals heard under the new system compared with the previous system;
2. the time it takes claimants to have their appeal heard because of the lack of SST staff and the lack of a time limit on the amount of time taken to issue decisions;
3. the use of videoconferences or telephone hearings instead of in-person hearings, which causes problems for some claimants; and
4. the seemingly reduced transparency of the new system, which no longer makes all of its decisions public and accessible.

Witnesses, such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, strongly recommended restoring the previous system and its Board of Referees, which, they indicated, was able to develop local expertise and as a result, functioned much better.[134] However, other witnesses said that this solution could be too drastic and costly, and recommended improvements to the SST instead.

For example, the reference document submitted by the CEIC’s Commissioner for Workers states that “stakeholders generally understand that to revert to the [Board of Referees] would bear very high costs in time, money and administration.”[135] Yet, these stakeholders still believe that “significant improvements must be made to the SST system and process.”[136]

For the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, “the only way that confidence will be restored in the EI appeal system is to return to the Board of Referees model.”[137] However, “if the SST model is to be retained then there should be consideration given to returning to provincially based ‘in person’ appeals with three person tribunals composed of stakeholders who are representative of the community, employees, and employers.”[138]

According to the Income Security Advocacy Centre, “[t]he Social Security Tribunal should be given the resources it requires to hear and decide EI cases more quickly and fairly”[139], whereas the Public Service Alliance of Canada argued that “If the previous Board of Referees’ appeal process is not to be restored, then the Social Security Tribunal at the very least needs fundamental reforms including:

• more transparency;
• more information and data about its activities;
• an increase in staff to reduce and eliminate delays and provide more face-to-face hearings;
• restoration of the business-labour role that was lost with the previous referee appeal system.”[140]

In her appearance before the Committee, Judith Andrew remarked that the SST replaced a well-established system that ran smoothly, noting that appeals were typically heard within a few days. Decisions were then expeditiously rendered, which, she suggests, is not the case with the SST:

No doubt the thinking was that this reorganization of the appeals systems would be more effective from a cost perspective and otherwise, not unlike when diverse services to Canadians or procurements across departments were placed under one authority. It does seem to me that rather than taking the so-called benefits of such moves on blind faith, governments need to conduct careful before-and-after analysis to drive toward the intended improvements.[141]

Ian MacPherson, of the PEI Fishermen’s Association, also told the Committee that, since the SST has now been in place for a few years, it may be a good time to assess its performance.[142]

The Committee believes that an effective EI appeal process is vital to ensuring that the system’s clients can exercise their rights in the fairest and most appropriate way possible. Unfortunately, the testimony heard during this study raised doubts about the new Social Security Tribunal’s effectiveness in handling complaints compared with the process that existed before 2013. As a result, the Committee makes the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Committee recommends that Employment and Social Development Canada undertake a review of the new Social Security Tribunal (SST) to determine:

• how it compares with the previous system in terms of costs, efficiency, and client satisfaction;
• how the SST can improve transparency, by providing claimants with all the evidence on which its decisions are based, and making all of its decisions public;
• how the SST could improve efficiency with more resources;
• the impacts of facilitating hearings in-person, or via videoconference, at both the first and second appeal stages;
• the impacts of setting a limit on the amount of time the SST takes to issue decisions.