Information & Ethics Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

Finally, this is picking up from Mr. Martin's line of questioning pertaining to the stability of this going forward. We note, for example, that over the last two years there's been a substantial change in the allocation that's been required because of the volume of work you have had to do, and you've made some estimates now in accordance with the relatively new legislation, the FAA.

What I thought I heard was that your estimates for the next year...and they seem to be fairly stable relative to this year's estimates in comparative numbers, around the $21 million mark going forward for the next two years. Can you verify that those dollars are predicted based on the existing legislation and/or environment you're working in? Should anything else come up, for example, the changes that may come down in response to our report on PIPEDA, these will in all likelihood change the resources you will need, while your budgets for the next two or three years are based on the existing situation. Would that be a fair summary?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's all I had, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

Ms. Lavallée, you have the floor.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Ms. Stoddart. It's a pleasure to see you again. We have met several times—and this goes for your colleagues too—at, among other places, the House of Commons Advisory Panel on the Funding of Officers of Parliament. It was on this occasion that I, along with my colleagues from my party and other parties, had the opportunity to look at your budgets. I don't have many questions with regard to your budget. If I recall correctly, one of my colleagues asked you what the average salary of administrative assistants was. I found this quite strange. You were given suggestions on the number of hours that such individuals should work.

But I digress.

Earlier, you talked about FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I still don't understand why this is an acronym, because the letters aren't in the right places. No matter, it's not important. I simply wanted to make sure that this was the centre we were referring to.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, that's the one.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I want to talk about your new duty to comply with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, in accordance with Bill C-2. If I remember correctly, 26 new organizations are now subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The first time I saw you at the advisory panel, this wasn't clear to me. I later realized that all of you were simultaneously looking for the same kind of staff. Some people look for a new job and demand a high price for their experience and knowledge. The 26 agencies in question would benefit from talking to one another. Have you already done so? If so, how? What conclusions have you reached?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Madam member, I said that we belonged to a network of mostly small agencies. This is perhaps not exactly the same group to which you were referring. We feel that this group is the most useful forum in which to share problems experienced by small specialized organizations within a government whose principles of staff management, classifications, budgetary and other standards are designed for large departments. This is a problem faced by all small organizations.

Let's take the example of reports. All small organizations have to produce the same 35 reports as the large departments. This is a burden on them.

We all want the same people, particularly for investigations. One of these groups decided to put ads in newspapers throughout Canada to recruit such individuals. This kind of thing costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. The goal is to try to attract a new pool of individuals to work in various departments and agencies of Canada's public service.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Not all the agencies concerned by Bill C-2, listed in its schedule, are small or directly related to the public service. I am thinking, among others, of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Would it not be in your interest to speak to one another in order to decide in advance the salaries you are prepared to pay for the kind of employees you are all currently seeking on Parliament Hill or in a normally limited geographic area? Obviously, you may recruit staff outside and convince them to come here. Nevertheless, we are talking about expertise in a very specific area, and there are not that many graduates per year. You are all seeking the same kind of individuals with the same profile.

I don't know the position titles, but I think it would be in your interest to speak to one another, in order to avoid competition. I am thinking of Quebec taxpayers, because they will also have to pay the salaries of these new public servants, who no doubt deserve their salaries, by the way.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

You are absolutely right, Madam member. A number of these agencies belong to the network I mentioned. I want to reassure you in relation to Quebec and other Canadian taxpayers. Competing bids are not possible unless individuals change agencies.

Classifications are set in accordance with overall standards and are verified from time to time. We can't pay someone more money just because there is a staffing shortage. It is not like in the private sector. All jobs are subject to a classification, and that classification is tied to a set salary scale. This is where organizations such as the large departments, which may have higher classifications, have an advantage. This is the phenomenon I was talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you both.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing today.

If I recall correctly, we may have given you a little bit of a hard time last year on budget day; that's what I call these submissions, though I know some of my colleagues aren't excited about the term.

But first of all I want to congratulate you. I think the presentation you gave us was better than last year's. I'm always looking for improvement, and I appreciate that.

I have a number of questions, and if I don't get them all done in five minutes, you'll hear from me again.

Last year you provided us with figures for full-time equivalents for 2006-07 of 125 people. Did you get to that?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Mr. Chairman, honourable member, we're currently at 105 full-time equivalents.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We budgeted for that amount; I'm assuming that stays with you until you get to that point. Then in this year's budget it goes from 125 to 154, so you've asked for additional money for that. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So you want to go from 112 to 154 from March 1 to next March, or whatever the date is?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, that is what is planned.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

If I've heard what you've told others correctly, you're having difficulty attracting people to these positions.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

That is correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So these positions are created based on what you think the workload will be in these areas. That's accurate?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So what is the realistic opportunity? What did you start at in the year before to get to 112? I want to know how well your recruitment is going.

[Tom Pulcine]

I think the previous year we had around eighty, so I think the increase would have been something to the tune of 25%.