There is a lot of questions embedded in that, Mr. Chair.
The allocation of 74 decision-makers was based on starting with a relatively clean slate, which didn't happen. The old Pension Appeals Board did not transmit to the department the fact that there were several thousand backlogged cases. That was not included in the planning, which I find very regrettable
On the rigorous pre-screening process, you talk about 25% being lawyers. I invite the committee, perhaps in an in camera meeting so as not to violate anyone's privacy, to actually go through the CVs of the people we have, at least the people I've appointed since I've been minister. They are phenomenal, first-rate people. I am quite sure that the percentage of lawyers is higher than 25%. We have taken the patronage dimension of this out of the system. There might be a couple of people on there who have supported my party in the past. I know of only one person personally, who I appointed to the board, with whom I had a pre-existing relationship but who is eminently qualified. These are qualified individuals who are not appointed on the basis of partisanship but on the basis of competence.
I have a real sense of urgency about this, which I have conveyed clearly to the chair of the tribunal, and it's why we have seen a reallocation of 12 decision-makers from the EI division to the CPP division. It's why we have appointed 22 part-time experienced and trained decision-makers. It's why we are lifting the statutory cap on the number of tribunal decision-makers. It's why the chair is getting a productivity model, so we can assess how many additional decision-makers we may need to add. It's why, on my insistence, we've truncated the timeline for the pre-screening process from 12 months to a few months, so we can get people through the queue faster for consideration for appointment.
We're doing everything within our power to add additional resources and speed up the process.