Evidence of meeting #55 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was problem.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Human Resource Management Modernization Branch, Canada Public Service Agency
I just wanted to say that I agree entirely with what you're suggesting. What we've tried to do today, and it's probably just touching the surface, is demonstrate that we are serious about looking at what the real issue is and at whether there is an issue. We aren't ignoring anecdotal things, because we all get paid too. So we're trying to make sure it works.
What we haven't outlined is that we are looking at service delivery models. We're certainly looking at where the private sector has gone. There has been no decision made on that, but we're looking at various delivery models for improving.
As Hélène said, we're looking heavily to the use of technology, because that's probably one area in which we have fallen behind. We've done a lot of work to help the compensation advisors themselves do their work with an application called virtual pay, which puts it all out there. They can refer to the collective agreements and make those kinds of calculations a lot more quickly.
But we haven't looked at a system-wide HR system that will capture all this from all departments. Many departments have their own homegrown systems. And we have a very powerful initiative under way now to try to consolidate them in one information system.
4:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Human Resource Management Modernization Branch, Canada Public Service Agency
It makes perfect sense. That's why I'm saying that I agree entirely with you. We are looking at all those initiatives.
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
I actually appreciate the construct of mind of the honourable MP. You're right. If we can, very simply, properly define the problem, we certainly can work on the elements of a solution. One of the things we're facing is that there are multi-faceted elements that may not be as optimized as they could be within the various boxes I talked to you about. We believe that by working en conjonction with all of them, we run a better chance of being able to actually optimize the entire system.
If you were to ask me if there is a widespread problem of cheques not being issued, I would have to tell you no, but at the same time I do not want to minimize the fact that we've been hearing noises in the system that deserve our attention. What we're trying to do with you today is to say what elements we actually have identified. And Mr. Burton talked about the work that has been done with the attrition rate and the training and all that. I've been trying to demonstrate to you that we're trying to work at the front end as well and provide the tools as much as possible.
If there were one single problem, there would be one single solution. There are many components, and we're trying to work on all of them at the same time. I think that's the best information we can provide you with. We are aware that there are pockets, and we're working on those. We want to facilitate, for the entire system, something that will avoid having those types of pockets and have something that runs smoothly.
If I were hard pressed to say whether we have a prevailing problem of cheques not being issued, I would have to answer that with 186,000 people, the noise would be much higher if on a broad scale things were not happening. But yes, there are pockets.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Might I suggest that you at least have a fail-safe system then? If we have people who are falling between the cracks, and these people depend on that for a variety of reasons--it could be a mortgage, it could be whatever--and all of sudden they don't have that proper funding, there should at least be a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that they are looked after somehow until the transition stage is done so we can successfully deal with all of them.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's why I was saying that it's not because we hear very few noises compared to the magnitude of the organization we're managing that we shouldn't pay attention to it. I agree with you on that wholeheartedly. There are people behind that.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
I believe there is a problem, and it is a government operations problem, because you can't tell us. Yet you come to us and tell us that there are two delivery structures.
For one thing, can you tell us where the problems are more prevalent and which ones they are? I mean, to me, as a government, that's a government operations issue. You, as Treasury Board, should be able to answer that. If you can't, then find the answers, because it's important. It's not just noise; it's people.
I will go now to Ms. Nash.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
It's really not a question; it's a statement.
There is a problem. When employees don't get paid, they don't call the assistant secretary, labour relations and compensation operations person. They call their MP, and they've been calling us. I think the problem today is we invited the wrong witnesses, or they sent the wrong witnesses. They're good witnesses. They're good people. They do good work but not for what we want to do.
I suggest we move on to item 2 on our agenda and bring people here who can answer the questions that we want to ask. There are people who aren't getting paid, and we want information on that. Nothing else. If you want to know what department, his problem was with Public Works. My problem is with Canada Revenue Agency. If there are others, members of Parliament will speak out on it, but somebody must read these blues from the departments. Maybe tomorrow somebody from the department should contact the chair and say, we're going to put somebody on to this in Public Works and in Canada Revenue Agency, and we'll get you your answers. No. They always send us the high-level management who aren't the ones we call when we have problems.
Again, the bureaucracy sent the wrong people. That's not the first time it's happened here. That's why I'm not that loyal to being here because it's a waste of time. We've been wasting an hour. That's not what we want to talk about.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
We have a motion on the floor to adjourn this debate. That's not subject to debate or amendments.
I'll call the vote on the motion to adjourn on this particular subject. All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Not on this agenda item.
Not on this issue.
Thank you. I hope you'll take our suggestions. Frankly, we need to find out who's in charge. That's our biggest problem with this. And who's in charge government-wide? I think it's Treasury Board, or should be. I hate to tell you that.
We will suspend for a few minutes.
4:39 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Madam Chair, I explained the reasons for my motion the last time. I maintain my motion and have no other explanations to provide. It is very clear.
4:39 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you very much.
It seems the die is cast, but I'll make the valiant effort anyway to maybe shake a vote or two loose. Who knows? You never know.
This is a really bad idea. This motion is not in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers in any regard. Every single witness that this committee has called before it from the private sector and the public sector has suggested that what our government is doing is in the best interests of taxpayers. There has not been one witness who has said that what we've suggested is not in the best interest of taxpayers, that it is not fully compliant with all the measures of accountability, that it is not above board and gets value for dollars for taxpayers' money. In fact, I can quote some of the witnesses who were before the committee.
James McKellar, who we will recall is the professor of real property from York University, said that what this government is doing is “really a practical solution”. He asked himself a rhetorical question: “Is it a good time to sell? It's a great time to sell.”
We've had submissions as well. Sandy McNair from Altus InSite, which is a division of the Altus Group Limited, experts on commercial real estate, said that our government's plan is a prudent and appropriate approach to best meet the immediate and long-term needs of the federal government.
Paul Hindo, who is the vice-president and general manager of Cushman & Wakefield LePage, said the government strategy is the way to go.
Stan Krawitz, who is the president of Real Facilities Inc., one of Toronto's leading authorities in commercial real estate, said the timing of a possible sale couldn't be better.
Ms. Nash, before the committee when Michael Fortier was here—not the last time but the time before—said, quote: “This all sounds very good. Minister Fortier has been before the committee twice on this subject, and both times he was—”
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
That was the full quote. When Minister Fortier was before this committee both times specifically on this subject, this committee ran out of time for questions to him on this subject.
Also, what we're discussing here...this is all coming from the RBC and BMO study that is not going to be released publicly because it's not in the best interests of taxpayers. That has been repeated time and time again.
Passing this motion as an attempt to get the government to stop doing what is clearly in the best interests of taxpayers and what the Liberals were prepared to do multiple times over—24 times over, if my math isn't failing, in terms of the size of sale-leaseback that the Liberals were prepared to do—is absolutely in the best interests of taxpayers. It is a lay-up. It is obvious, and this motion encourages the government to violate the confidentiality agreement that we've signed with two banks. It encourages this government to abandon a process of saving hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars and would jeopardize our bargaining position to get the best value for taxpayers' dollars. So the idea that any member of this committee would in full sobriety actually vote for this motion is astonishing to me.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Well, I'm very sober at the moment, Mr. Moore, and I think the intent of this motion is sound to the extent that we all understand and recognize that what the government is trying to do is a practical solution to a real-world problem. We all understand that.
There has been a frustration on the part of my colleagues, and certainly myself, that as custodians of these assets, which we all are, all of us around this table, it has been very difficult for us to ascertain the information that would really lead us to the conclusion that this in fact is the best outcome for taxpayers. It may well be, but we have been systematically prevented from knowing enough information to come to that conclusion.
You quote Mr. McKellar and other experts. They talked about it with no more certainty or no more knowledge and certainly no more facts than we have. The witnesses from the two banks were helpful to a certain extent but provided no information that we could not devise from published information. The minister, being as helpful as I'm sure he felt he could be, did not really provide us with any other information—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
