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

Finance committee  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.

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

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

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  I unfortunately don't have the current average, but I can provide that information in writing to the committee. The 90 days will provide for more timely decisions, as there has been some concern about the length of time that the appeals processes have taken.

Finance committee  They were designated in the past as well, in the same manner, by the minister. The appointments now will allow the minister to make outside appointments. In fact, that wasn't restricted before. This is just bringing it into line with the same language that applies to part III of the Labour Code for wage recovery referees.

Finance committee  Current officers who were designated will continue to work in health and safety but will not hear appeals.

Finance committee  The use of “appointment” indicates Parliament's intention to ensure the independence of decision-makers from government. The amendments would bring part II of the code in line with part III of the code in terms of labour standards. Under part III, the wage recovery referees are appointed by the minister.

Finance committee  The amendments are intended to address issues of timeliness and efficiency. A 90-day timeframe for a decision is seen as reasonable and is in keeping with labour code practices of other tribunals. There isn't a way to arbitrarily decide whether or not it's a win. I believe the minister has the power to extend that deadline beyond the 90 days for certain provisions, but I need to check that as well and get back to you.