Finance Committee on May 5th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Lenore Duff]

That was one of the questions I said I'd come back to.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Paillé, encore.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The answers don't provide much clarification.

How many appeals are there per year?

[Lenore Duff]

Forty decisions are typically made a year, on average.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The average period is 195 days. So people currently sit as full-time appeal officers, as it were. You're telling us that these people will be absorbed into the public service, since they will no longer be occupying those positions. However, if they refuse, since they were clearly doing this work on a full-time basis—am I to understand that they will be entitled to lay-off pay? And could the same public servants who can leave the public service with lay-off pay be appointed by the minister and thus occupy those positions, no doubt with greater compensation, and thus take advantage of the system? Even if there are only four or five individuals, I'm trying to see whether this merry-go-round can occur.

[Lenore Duff]

I'm afraid I can't speak to HR practice. That's not my area of expertise. But there is no expectation that anyone would be leaving the public service. If they do leave the public service, they'd be entitled to the same protections and benefits of any other public servant.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We agree that these people have expertise, since they've been carrying on this occupation for a number of years. So it's possible and highly desirable for the minister to reappoint these people who have expertise.

Furthermore, you're telling us that the average length of an appeal process is six and a half months. So that means between 195 and 200 days. By means of an act, we're setting a maximum of 90 days, 100 days less. Thank you very much, that's very brave. However, if that's not feasible, what happens after 90 days? It's all well and good to put that into an act; we're in favour of virtue and motherhood, but you can't have both at the same time.

[Lenore Duff]

As I said, our expectation is that the 90-day timeline is a reasonable limit and that the appeals will be heard and processed in that period of time.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If the period is currently 195 days, as my colleague from Outremont said, with all due respect for the public service, how can we suddenly go from an average period of 195 days to a maximum of 90 days? How is that possible?

[Lenore Duff]

As I mentioned, it is in trying to build in efficiencies in the system to ensure that these appeals are responded to in a 90-day period, and that is a common timeline for other appeals within the labour program.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Can we express some doubt on that subject, madam?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair, on part 21.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask an orientation question. Why has the decision been made to provide for the appeal officers' powers by regulation rather than in legislation? This is quite unusual. This kind of thing is usually provided for by legislation, not delegated legislation.

[Lenore Duff]

Are you asking me why we changed it from the system that we have now?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In fact, it's provided in Part 21 that the powers of the appeal officer will be established by regulation rather than by law. I simply wanted to know why.

Perhaps there is a better way of asking the question, so as not to compel you to answer an orientation question. Are there any other models, in your opinion, under which someone is given this power, a quasi-judicial power to all intents and purposes, by regulation rather than in legislation.

[Lenore Duff]

I wouldn't be able to answer about other models. As mentioned, this is bringing it into line with the other appeals officers that exist to hear appeals under part III.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, it's currently provided in legislation, not by regulation, hence the proposed change here. I simply wanted to know why. Usually, when we create a quasi-judicial function, given the solemnity and importance of the function, we tend to do so by legislation. I'm just trying to understand why it's being done by regulation.

[Lenore Duff]

I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to go back and report back.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'll close by asking whether we can check to see whether there are other models. We don't know of any. I'd like to have the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We can have that sent to the clerk and we'll send that to all members.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Hall Findlay, I technically do need unanimous consent to have you ask questions.

[A voice]

Oh, you have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Hall Findlay, please.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You guys, just the love...the love in this room.

Ms. Duff, thank you very much for being here. One of the questions that was being asked earlier, and my question might help, because when you're moving something from a duration of six and a half months to 90 days.... My question was, how long does an appeals officer tend to spend per case? Because if you said you had about 40 decisions a year, are these appeals officers occupied full-time on appeals, or do they do other things?

[Lenore Duff]

They are occupied. They work only on appeals, but not only on hearing appeals; they do background research and investigation as well.