Finance Committee on June 14th, 2006

[Réal Lamarche]

That might create a problem. It is mostly members of the institute who are recruited. We would like the CRA to set up a training program. There is also a problem in terms of staffing. The CRA is neither able to recruit sufficiently qualified staff nor to offer the staff career promotion. Furthermore, it pays no heed to employees skills profile. The institute would like to see greater professionalization of its members.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

One of the things that's noted in your report is the aspect of a flawed staffing experiment. I wonder if you'd do two things: one, let us know who actually authorized the experiment; and two, tell us, has it changed since its implementation?

[Michèle Demers]

I believe that was one of the reasons that justified the creation of the agency, to make the staffing process easier and faster for the employer. As I said, they've learned on the job ever since the inception of the agency, and it has been, in our opinion, a failure.

I have a hot-off-the-press Federal Court decision here, where the judge said:

In my view, the unilateral action of the agency (without the benefit of any jurisprudence on the issue) in the circumstances of this matter does nothing to enhance the credibility of its staffing program. On the contrary, it undermines it.

They give reason to the appellant in this case and they quash the decision not to go for judicial review. And they make a very strong statement that the independent third-party review was ignored by the agency.

So when I say that, there's a cry from the heart on everybody's part saying that staffing and recourse at CRA are in dire need of fixing. They need strong recommendations from this committee, if you're going to agree to the review. And as the union representing the professionals there, we have some recommendations that we can forward to you for deliberation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That would be great.

Picking up on the review, then, I would ask: Who did the review? Was it an internal review or an external review? I note in here that it was third-party reviewers.

[Michèle Demers]

Third-party review is the process they have in place for recourse.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Right, so was that third-party review done internally or externally?

[Michèle Demers]

It was instituted by the agency.

[Réal Lamarche]

The process is part of the recourse for staffing. They have a pool of what they call “outside people” with a specific mandate, and we go to them.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

When you speak of the millions of dollars that have been lost in this process--and you mentioned consultants--is that part of what you're referring to?

[Réal Lamarche]

We are referring to the overall cost of implementing the staffing system. You asked earlier who came up with the idea originally. Allow me to remind you that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada appeared before this committee in 1999. At that time, we raised the issue of staffing as a matter of priority.

The system set up in response did not work then and does not work now. Even although its objectives have not been met, the government continues to throw good money after bad. The agency is unable to fill its vacancies. There is a crying need for auditors in the Montreal office. The competition process has been running for almost 10 months, but, as yet, nobody has been recruited. It is the same in Toronto: a competition for external candidates was launched in August 2005, but nobody was recruited. The agency has vacant positions that it cannot fill. Even within the agency, employees feel that the staffing process makes career progression an upheld struggle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lamarche.

To continue, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

And thank you all for your presentations today.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think I can confidently say that for all the words that have been spoken, you need to be congratulated, because you're the first group that's actually come in and made a recommendation to change the bill and act that we're here to review. Unfortunately, it stems from a lot of problems--and I'll get into that.

Ms. Bannon, you did make the general statement, and I'm quoting from your document: “...but I can say that our relationship under the CRA structure is mostly good, and certainly better than when we were a department of the government”.

I assume that to say exactly what it says, that things are better, a lot better than they used to be, and that by and large you at least have a relationship that can work, but you still have some of these huge problems.

I'll pick up on where I think Mr. Dykstra was going on the third party, referring to section 59, which is where they actually ask for that arm's-length review. One of the presentations here--there are three of them together, but if I can treat them as one, whoever appropriately should answer, feel free--made the point that they didn't do the process the way they were supposed to--I believe that's an allegation contained in here--and that rather than randomly selecting employees to interview, you're alleging that managers hand-picked some of the people who went in and did these interviews. That's unless I'm misreading the document.

[Réal Lamarche]

There are indeed allegations that managers had hand-picked their preferred candidates. All I can say about the way in which candidates are chosen is that both members gave their approval, and then the third party adds his voice to the chorus.

Our main criticism is that no system was ever set up to allow people to show that they had the necessary skills and qualifications for a particular position.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think the problem is we're talking about two different things. I was talking about the review.... I'll just read the quote, and then you'll know exactly where I am: “Employees who were interviewed by the consultants were not selected on a random basis and were in fact invited to participate by local managers.”

So I was referring to that review, which is mandated as part of this.

[Réal Lamarche]

That was during the review by Deloitte Touche—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Réal Lamarche]

—about recourse.

Some of our people were not even interviewed. Some of our people were not even quoted in their report, and that was the big concern.

Our view of the Deloitte Touche report is that probably the report was written before the work or the interviews. That was our clear—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We don't have a lot of time. I want to help you by getting to what you're looking to change.

Section 54 is the place you're looking to make a change. I assume what you would look for—correct me if I'm wrong—is a deletion of subsection 54(2), where it states straight up:

No collective agreement may deal with matters governed by the staffing program.

Would elimination of that suffice?

[Réal Lamarche]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Help me. I have a background in labour, from a long time ago now, but I've done a lot of this and have trouble understanding how staffing issues, which constitute arguably the biggest area of consternation.... Certainly when I was a union steward and a local union president, that was one of my biggest issues: dealing with bumpings, postings, new jobs, and who's qualified and who isn't. Then you get into the light duty stuff, and people moving around.... All of that is governed by the collective agreement. It's the only thing that keeps the place free from chaos during the course of a day. I don't understand how you can exist in a world where you're the collective bargaining agent representing the workers, but when it comes to staffing issues you have no collective agreement upon which to offer up representation.

Is it as bizarre as it sounds, or am I missing something?

[Michèle Demers]

It's close.

[John Gordon]

I think you got it pretty close—bang on—and that's exactly what we're looking for. The fact of the matter is, you're correct. Under normal circumstances, unions can bargain with employers, except if your employer happens to be an agency of government or government itself.

No other employer in the country gets to set the rules. The rules are set for labour boards by governments. They don't allow us to use them; they establish their own rules when it comes to dealing with us. That's what we're asking to have changed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If this were eliminated, would that then free your hand to bargain the way every other union I know of bargains?

We need this, because if we're going to make some changes, we need to hear exactly what you're saying.

Or does it need to be modified? Is removal alone enough, or does it need to be modified?

[Shane O'Brien, Acting Executive Assistant to the National President, Union of Taxation Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Maybe I could have an attempt at that.

I'm the executive assistant to the national president, but I am the staffing liaison and the chief consultant for the union in our discussions with the agency.

One of the biggest problems is that without the ability to negotiate, the employer, the CRA, has the unilateral and unfettered right to set the rules. As we go to their stages of recourse—where union representation is not allowed at the first two levels—and we make some inroads, the agency has the unfettered authority, with the stroke of a pen, to change the policy once again. Without the ability to bargain the rules at the table and to have rules we all must live by, or to negotiate those changes, our employees are left with a really futile sense of recourse. They have no real recourse.

In fact, as you'll see in our brief, one thing is that even when we do win before the third party reviewers—who are chosen by the agency themselves, and we are not consulted and have no choice as to whom they pick to hear the cases—and those reviewers find in our favour, the employer has no rules in their own policy that they must follow the findings, the binding recommendations of the reviewers. In fact, we are now, instead of dealing with these before the reviews, spending the time of the Federal Court Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal arguing staffing issues of the public service. And we are getting cool receptions in the federal court. They have bigger fish to fry than whether John Smith from Newfoundland or Sylvie Lefebvre from Quebec got an appointment from a PM2 to a PM3. But we're left with no other alternative than to fight our battles in the courts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. McKay, to continue, for five minutes, sir.