Finance Committee on May 5th, 2010

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We're not talking about a large number of jobs here. It's quite surprising, in view of the fact that you're the specialist responsible for informing us about this part, that you don't know how many people that represents. I think the number is important in the context of the evaluation we have to conduct.

[Lenore Duff]

Yes. Just to be clear, it will affect three to five people. I understood you to be asking, initially, how many people there are in total in terms of health and safety appeals officers.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I was talking about the appeal officers.

[Lenore Duff]

This change will affect three to five people, depending on the number of appeals that come in.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How many appeal officers are there in total?

[Lenore Duff]

I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to get back to you on that.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'd like to have some clarification. I think this is important in the context of the evaluation we have to conduct. You said earlier that the people in place were going to stay there. This is simply a new policy that the government wants to apply through this part. Will some people lose their jobs?

[Lenore Duff]

The people will not remain in those positions. Public servants who are currently doing this as appeals officers will not continue to do that job. The system will change so that these officers will be appointed. They will be outside experts. It will affect three to five people.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You seem to be saying that all the appeal officer positions will be abolished, that we'll be starting over from scratch and that the minister will appoint new officers. Is that correct?

[Lenore Duff]

That's right. We'll do that rather than designating current public servants who are doing the work now.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Will those who aren't appointed by the minister keep their job security? Will they be assigned other duties in the department?

[Lenore Duff]

Yes. The expectation is that they will be absorbed into the department, into the labour program, in similar positions.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What you're describing to me is worse than what I had imagined. We're not even retaining the expertise of the people who are already occupational health and safety specialists. Instead we're going to proceed with political appointments. I thought the government had a rationalization plan for its human resources. Here you're telling me about increasing the number of government employees. You say they won't belong to the public service. However, they will be paid by the government. They'll be contract employees.

[Lenore Duff]

They will be appeals officers appointed by the minister. It's a common practice in the labour program to have outside experts hear appeals. It's an arm's-length relationship. They're not from the government side, the employer side, or the employee side.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

This is an additional government expense designed to set aside public servants in order to hire other people.

[Lenore Duff]

Again, we're not setting aside public servants. They will be integrated into the program. The appeals officers will only be engaged when there is an appeal to be heard. They won't be on staff all the time. Savings are expected from this measure, rather than expenditures.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You're hiring people to replace those who are already in place. So this is an additional expense.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I want to clarify something. Ms. Duff, perhaps you can respond.

My understanding, from reading and going through the clauses here, is that clause 2172 changes the definition of appeals officer in section 122 from a person who is designated to a person who is appointed. This makes it clear that officers may be from outside the public service. My understanding is that this expands who can then be an appeals officer. Is that correct?

[Lenore Duff]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. In terms of an appeal filed with the minister--clause 2173--my understanding is that the appeal will be commenced with the filing of a notice of appeal with the minister rather than through the current process of filing with an appeals officer. Is that correct?

[Lenore Duff]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. In terms of the next clause, with respect to appointments--that the minister shall appoint an appeals officer upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the appeals officer will be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into and making a decision on the appeal, and this parallels the appointment provisions in part III of the Canada Labour Code--is there anything in that section you want to comment on?

[Lenore Duff]

No. That is the process. It would be the same process as used in part III. We're now making the process similar for part II so that there's consistency across the program with how we treat appeals.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just so members understand this, basically it is sort of expanding the pool as to who can be chosen to be an appeals officer. The appeal is a notice of appeal with the minister rather than with the appeals officer. Those are the essential changes in this part of Bill C-9. Is that correct?

[Lenore Duff]

That is correct.

Can I return to one question that I have the answer to? The average time of an appeal is now being limited to 90 days. On average, in the past, the appeals took six and a half months between the time the appeal hearing was held and a decision was issued.