Remission of Supplemental Benefits for Three Appointees

Summary#

This is the Supplemental Benefits Received by Three Governor in Council Appointees Within the Department of Employment and Social Development Remission Order (SI/2023-67), published November 8, 2023. It cancels (remits) debts for supplemental benefits that three federal appointees received by mistake and that the government says would be unreasonable or unjust to collect.

What it does#

• Grants remission (cancels repayment) of supplemental benefits that were paid in error to three Governor in Council appointees in the Department of Employment and Social Development.
• Covers specific positions and time periods:
  • The Chairperson and the Member with particular responsibilities for children’s issues of the National Advisory Council on Poverty for their time as full‑time members since April 2021, and for an earlier period when they were ministerial appointees (September 2019 to March 2021).
  • The Chief Accessibility Officer for the period since appointment to the full‑time post in May 2022.
• The order was made on the recommendation of the Treasury Board and the responsible ministers and is based on the remission power in the Financial Administration Act (the federal law that allows cancelling certain debts).

Who's affected#

• The three named appointees who received supplemental benefits in error (the two National Advisory Council on Poverty appointees and the Chief Accessibility Officer) are the direct beneficiaries — they will no longer be required to repay those amounts.
• The Department of Employment and Social Development is the department involved administratively.
• The notice does not name any dollar amounts or say how many people beyond those three are affected. It appears limited in scope to these specific cases.

Why it matters#

• Those appointees will avoid having to repay money they received because of an administrative mistake. That can prevent financial hardship for the individuals involved.
• It illustrates how the government can use its remission powers to correct administrative errors on a case‑by‑case basis.
• The action is narrow and administrative rather than a change in law or policy; it does not create a new entitlement or broader program.