Government Operations Committee on Dec. 12th, 2007

[Monique Boudrias]

Madam Chair, what I would like to answer on this is that the job description of the employee of National Defence is part of the core public administration, and CSIS is a separate employer, having their own system, their own classification standard that is not comparable to ours. They don't use the same rating. We are not aware of that case specifically, but I can answer that they are two completely different systems of classification.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

But have you made interdepartmental classifications, or do you feel that this has been sorted out, or do you feel that these gaps exist between departments?

[Monique Boudrias]

No. There is no gap within the departments. For all the departments that are part of the core public administration for which Treasury Board is the employer, all the job descriptions are the same. They are rated at the same rate and they are classified at the same level, and we have done that in a very structured approach throughout the years in reclassifying. When there was a public-service-wide reclassification in 1999 and in 2003, there was a review of the entire job description for all the compensation advisers. They were all reclassified at the same time, because if we did not do that, you can imagine the issue we would have in terms of people moving from a department to another one to have a better job or a promotion or better salary level.

So within the core public service the employer is paying all the compensation advisors the same way at the same salary. But when we go out of the core public service where Treasury Board is not the employer, they have their own classification standards, their own classification system, their own collective bargaining approach where there is bargaining with unions, or no bargaining because people are not unionized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good day to all of you.

Compensation is near and dear to many sectors of the public service. At the very least, it is a subject dear to many people who work in the Outaouais region. As you probably know, I met with Minister Fortier last March. With him was an employee who explained the situation. Every time Mr. Fortier has met with the committee since then, he has updated us on the situation, however briefly. The fact remains that he has reported some progress on this front.

My aim is to try and improve matters. We know, and you know, that there is a problem. It is unfortunate for those who are experiencing it first hand. I have a file containing the names of 29 public sector employees who are still waiting to be compensated for overtime worked. The delays are primarily with Public Works and Government Services Canada. I read Mr. Nantel's most recent report, which you may be familiar with. I met Mr. Nantel when I met with the Minister. I would like to read you an excerpt from the report, because I would like to get your comments:

Every month, new problems arise as a result of the lack of experience of new trainees at the compensation centre. At least our directors have now decided to meet to discuss the problem and they have contacted us to ask that we send them the documents required to proceed with compensation actions. The biggest problem encountered is the misplacing of documents and overtime cheques. If these two problems could be resolved, this would prevent many new ones from cropping up. Compensation services are not alone in not keeping up. Human Resources are also experiencing problems.

We'll stick with compensation services for the moment. Problems in this area were mentioned. The report dates back to November 19 last. While I would like to hear your comments on this subject, I do have two other questions for you as well. I hope you can give us an update on your area of responsibility.

We have also heard about union-related issues. We heard how 15 or 20 years ago, dealing with pay issues was like a walk in the park. Everyone was familiar with how things worked and things managed to get done. Over time, there have been cutbacks, restructuring and so forth. Employees have a great deal more work on their plates. Consequently, after they receive their training, employees realize that they could work elsewhere in the federal public service and earn a similar salary, for doing work that is far less complex. Moreover, employee turnover has been quite high. Employees apply for a position elsewhere in the public service where working conditions are better. The union regularly brings cases like this to our attention.

Regarding issues of this nature and restructuring, have you anything new to report to us, so that I can go back to these individuals, share the tenure of our discussions with them and report back on possible solutions to the problem? I am prepared to listen to what you have to say.

[Monique Boudrias]

I would like to ask Ms. Lorenzato to answer the first question, because it specifically concerns her department. I could field the question about responsibilities, employee turnover and union-related issues.

[Diane Lorenzato]

Madam Chair, we are indeed fully aware of the situation raised by Mr. Nadeau.

To date, we have addressed a good portion of the files, but we have found that some are more complex than others, because it comes down to different interpretations where the employee and management do not necessarily agree. We are therefore in the process of resolving these matters.

In fact, we asked management to provide us with a complete list of employee files that were not yet fully resolved. We have made considerable progress and we now see that a small number of cases—29, as you mentioned, out of a total of 13,000 employees—remain to be fully resolved.

One of my biggest concerns was indeed the loss of documents. Compensation problems recently raised by employees stemmed from the fact that compensation services did not have the necessary documentation to carry out pay transactions. This led us to contact managers to remind them of their responsibility to submit the paperwork in advance—they know that an employee will be joining their team—or at the very least, on time.

In some instances, more stringent measures were taken, for example, when students were hired. We know that from time to time, students are hired. All of the paperwork is assembled and submitted to an officer for quick processing.

To resolve the overtime issue, a sticking point in particular among blue collar workers, we are in the process of automating the system. At present, all transactions are done on paper and the manager must sign the document, which is then forwarded to compensation services. Often, documents get misplaced along the way.

We are looking at ways for employees to enter data in the computerized system, so that it is conveyed directly to PWGSC's compensation services. That way, there is no actual paperwork and hence, fewer opportunities to lose data and make mistakes. Transactions will be processed much faster. We are hoping to have this system up and running by the beginning or middle of 2008. It will improve the situation, because indeed, this is one area that still requires some work.

I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Welcome, to our guests.

I have a few questions here.

We've had quite a remarkable improvement in results from when our previous witnesses were here and the compensation advisers were up in arms, etc., and overworked and underpaid, etc.

But I have a bit of a problem with an equation here. You've hired 100-plus compensation pay advisers, and it's going to take a year and a half to two years to train them. So they're really not that effective yet. And yet, in the last few months, we have had a dramatic improvement.

So my question to you is, why have we had such a dramatic improvement before we even have these compensation advisers in and able to contribute well to the system? Is it because of the technology advancements you've made, or is it just from more attention being paid to the file?

[Monique Boudrias]

I would say, Madam Chair, that attention is being paid to the file. We have a very dedicated community, who have agreed to do overtime to resolve the issues. We are counting on them and are very appreciative of what they've done.

The new people who are coming on board are obviously learning. But as my colleague Madame Lorenzato mentioned, we were lucky to get some former employees who were retired but who came back through that process to help us look after the worst part of the workload and the cases we had.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

You've stated that we are going to get a report or update in a couple of months, which we're looking forward to. What I would also like to see, of course, is the starting point. You made your original assessment, so I'd like to make sure it's included in that so we will have some comparative data to rate. And possibly, could you give us some idea of what you might have included in that report?

[Dan Danagher]

Essentially the report will cover exactly that, Madam Chair: the results of the first survey, a summary of the actions taken by departments, and the results of the second survey--some indication of the actions still to be taken if in fact there is still a gap, after the second survey, between the standards and what we see.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Now, we have some new IT systems or payroll service systems coming online. I'm curious about two points on those.

Is this a self-created or a designed set of software, or have you been able to, per se, buy this off the rack and use an existing program? Are we spending huge amounts of money for design or are we able to pick up something that's universally acceptable?

[Renée Jolicoeur]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your question and shed some light on those questions. They are very important.

We are going to use what we call commercial off-the-shelf systems. These systems are already programmed. They are used by large corporations. In fact, before deciding on the models of service delivery that we will adopt, we consulted with large corporations, with other public services at the provincial and municipal levels. We are part of a number of benchmarking groups. Everybody is going in that direction now.

So the model we will be using in government in a few years--because it takes time to implement those systems--is exactly the model used by the other public services presently or what will be used in the future.They are doing the same thing as we are. They are migrating to this more modern set-up for those functions.

So the challenges we are experiencing presently are experienced by other organizations as well.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Personally, quite frankly, I'm pleased to hear that. I've had some experience with designer systems. The exponential cost of them is just unbelievable. So I commend you on your decisions to go with a system with a proven track record and apply it to the government purposes.

However, this system is obviously having an effect already, when you're automating and bringing forth new systems. What kind of effect is that going to have on potential staffing? Is that going to affect our compensation advisers? Maybe we won't need as many in the future. Is there a thought process involved with that?

[Renée Jolicoeur]

I cannot judge the number of compensation advisers, because the competencies required of compensation advisers will differ. They will provide different advice to the employees. As you know, we also have a challenge to recruit the best elements in the public service. The compensation package is one of the assets that we can offer in the public service. This information is not necessarily well known, and the compensation advisers can provide that information to potential employees.

The difference it will make in terms of recruitment is that this new technology is technology that people know, that they use commonly at home or at work presently. So it will be easier to recruit employees as compensation advisers because the technology is a lot easier to operate. Also, there will be a lot less training required to operate those systems. The clients--the employees and the managers--will be using systems similar to those that they use when they do Internet banking.

So managers, rather than having to go through the compensation advisers, as is the case presently, will be able to enter the transactions directly into the system. That will come to the pay system, and the transactions will be done immediately.

Now, this will apply to a portion of the transactions. There remain transactions that will require the involvement of the compensation advisers. But the high-volume transactions will be handled automatically through the Intranet, if you wish.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have another minute, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Sure.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

You've set up a new office in Matane. I just need to understand this a little bit more. Is this decentralization or is it a centralization of services? I'd like to know more about the capacity and the capability and what's involved with the office there.

[Diane Lorenzato]

Thank you.

First of all, we've restructured our compensation unit to adopt what we call a hybrid system, where employees have access to their services through a service centre, through telephone and e-mail, but the infrastructure behind the service centre is organized by business line, by client group. You have teams effected to each of our branches--a team for our acquisitions branch, a team for our real property branch, and so on--that are full service. They actually have the full spectrum of expertise in compensation.

We decided to open the satellite office in Matane to expand our capacity and not have all of our resources here in the NCA, where we actually see, as you mentioned, a turnover. In Matane we already have an office providing other types of services, so the pool of expertise and talent we had onsite was a good fit to actually expand our business lines into that region. We decided just to take advantage of the talent we had in Matane. What this does is create a team that will be attached to one of our branches.

So it's not decentralizing the service, it's simply increasing our capacity to provide a good service.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me first apologize to the witnesses for my lateness. I had a private member's bill to present in the House. Today we were also honouring Madame Robillard, who announced her leaving, and several members got up to say some very nice words and to praise her for all her efforts for Canada over the years. By the time I got to my private member's bill, it was a little bit late, and I apologize for that.

I'm also new to the committee, but two things come to mind that have been raised at the committee and that seem of great concern. Maybe you can provide some further clarification on them.

The first area is classification and timely payments around compensation benefits. The other issue is turnover. Those are the two issues that I've heard over and over again people express some serious concerns about. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit further on both.

Again, the first issue is classification and compensation, the timeliness of these payments and the benefits. That has been raised by several people. The second issue is turnover, and whether that's creating serious problems within the civil service. The turnover seems to be a little bit high.

So perhaps you can comment on that and give us some explanations so that we can understand this.

[Monique Boudrias]

Madam Chair, on the issue of timeliness of payments, I would like my colleague from Treasury Board Secretariat to answer that question. I will cover the issues of classification and turnover.

[Dan Danagher]

On the timeliness of payments--you may have missed those opening remarks--essentially we conducted a survey in August. That survey and analysis of PWGSC's online pay system demonstrated to us that 66% of departments on average meet the standards of timeliness.

This is not for regular paycheques, because everybody gets their regular biweekly paycheques on time. This is for things like paying a new employee, striking off the record a departing employee, and so on.

Roughly 66% were within the standard of timeliness, 11% were about one week outside of that standard, and 23% two or more. That has led to action plans in each of the departments.

We conducted the second slice of the survey just two weeks ago. Those results should be in by January. After we've completed our analysis, we will be filing with the committee, sometime in February 2008, a report covering those two surveys.