Finance Committee on June 21st, 2006

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right, and the position of the board is the same, I gather.

[Michel Dorais]

It's the same. The position of the board is the same.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would as much put this to the chair as I would to the representatives, because I don't know the answer.

There is a board of directors with clear responsibilities, as subsection 31(1) of the act says: “The Board is responsible for overseeing the organization and administration of the Agency and the management of its resources, services, property, personnel and contracts.” I appreciate very much that we have the hired staff, the top staff, here. But, Chair, it would seem to me that we'd also want to hear from those who are maybe once removed from the actual administration of the agency and who have oversight responsibilities, although I would accept that, at this point in the process, if you're not recommending any changes, neither are they.

So I won't make a big deal out of it. It may not be crucial. But I certainly think it's something to consider for the next time, that the board maybe makes their own presentation, because their view of things is different from that of the staff. All of us who have served on community boards would understand that.

So I would just leave that there, unless you have any response as to why. Maybe there's a structural reason that we didn't bring in the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

There's no particular structural reason, and I'll take your suggestions as advice.

Proceed with your questions.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, if we have time, maybe have them come, even the chair alone.

This is my next question. The unions have talked about problems with the staffing issue. And we just heard from the CGA, who talked about their concern that some of the improvements they're seeing at the senior levels are not working their way down. I know we've reviewed, either at this committee or the other one, how a change in direction in terms of how managers are relating to their staff can often make a huge difference in this regard. We did hear, very seriously, that there are real staffing problems around the process. And subsection 54(2) of the act disallows the union to negotiate, within the collective agreement with the agency, things that pertain to staffing.

I had mentioned my own background as a union steward and the local union president years ago. A lot of it was around staffing--bumping, promotions, bidding on jobs, all of that. Does it not make sense to you, because you seem to want to fix things on the front line, that you would have the opportunity to be responsible for negotiating, with the unions, processes that both of you can buy into rather than, right now, the union feeling very much that they're not being listened to and that there's no mechanism for them?

So I give you that chance. I know I'm out of time.

[Michel Dorais]

Staffing in the act was recognized and preserved as a management right, as it is in the public service generally. This is not something that is at the negotiating table. For the time being, it has led us to the implementation of a very different staffing system. That has its problems, but it is also at the forefront of staffing systems in public sectors. It's called a competency-based management system, and the committee heard about it from the unions. We're working with the unions in committees to improve it. But in the end, in the act, it is the prerogative of management to decide which system will be put in place.

I would recommend that we leave it at this until we make it work with the unions.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My difficulty, though, is that the unions are saying they've taken it about as far as it can go and they really need this structural change to reach that level. If we leave it the way it is, then this issue is going to fester.

I appreciate that your intentions are good, and I think you really want to come to a resolution. But when you don't have the authority to negotiate the very things that are causing the greatest consternation from your own staff, isn't it a bit of an impediment for you?

I realize you're saying that you're going to make this other thing work, but it seems that you're kind of pushing it on them and it's not working. We're hearing from the other end of the process, the users of the system and the professionals, that they feel they're not getting what they would like to see.

I'm linking the two. Don't you agree that there's some linkage?

[Michel Dorais]

I don't think the unions are saying that they've pushed it as far as possible. They've been working with us and the agency committee on competency-based staffing systems, which will table a report this summer. Management and the unions are anxiously expecting that report, and hopefully it will have recommendations for improving the process that will satisfy both sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

We'll now move to Mr. Savage for five minutes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair

It's nice to see you again, Mr. Dorais, and the rest of the panel.

We've heard from a number of people, and it seems that in general people are seeing improvement in the service. There are issues that people have raised.

I think the Auditor General in essence told us that she's generally pleased with what she has seen from the audits she has done. She's pleased with the board of management, the audit committee, and the improving relationship with the provinces. She uses the term “year-over-year improvement” in the financial information. It seems to me that progress is being made. I congratulate you on that.

I want to follow up on this, but let me first ask this question. Have you seen the report that the CFIB did for the committee? One of the recommendations they made suggested that the CRA should adopt a more proactive approach to communicating changes in tax policy affecting SMEs. It goes to the issue Mr. Pacetti referenced earlier today, that merchants are left in the dark on the GST cut.

I'd like to probe that again and then come back to a different question.

Does this give you cause for concern, or does it make you think there might be something you can do in the limited time we have before the change comes about?

[Michel Dorais]

I think that generally speaking we're always for improved information

In the particular case of the CFIB, we sat down with them and worked on a document, which they distributed to all their members across the country. It outlined the changes in the various responsibilities that were coming out of those particular budget measures.

We have a very close relationship with that third party. I think their members, which include a large number of businesses, have been quite well informed as a result of that. It's probably the most efficient way to go.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Last week we heard from Mr. Whyte of CFIB, and he indicated that he thought he had a pretty good relationship with the agency. Today he says that, in terms of this lack of notice, it's outrageous, which is language that parliamentarians usually use when something is mildly outrageous.

Do you have a comment on that?

[Michel Dorais]

No, I don't have a different comment on that, other than to say the budget measures are highly publicized around the country when the budget comes out, and this particular one was more than highly publicized across the country. On our website and through our phone lines, the implications of the measures are very well explained, and third parties have taken steps with us to inform people.

I'm not sure what more we could do at this stage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. Let me go back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Baker would like to respond to your previous question.

[William Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I might add to this, this is not an uncommon event. The CFIB does surveys of their members. In the process, we sit down with the CFIB—and we in fact have a meeting scheduled in the near future—to go through what they find out from their members and to look at the initiatives we have under way to see if they're going to reasonably address it. If not, we develop another plan of attack and look at other options to address it.

I look at it as a very healthy process that works well in the system. They bring information to the table that we don't necessarily have, and a different perspective, and we work together to resolve things.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On the competency-based human resources management model that you're implementing, I understand it takes some time. The Auditor General indicated that she had planned to do an HR audit in 2004 or maybe in 2005, but she put it off because she felt there hadn't been enough time for this to permeate through the organization yet. I think she's planning on doing one this year, or next year, or something like that.

Do you have a comment on where you want to be by the end of this year in terms of the agency-wide implementation of the competency-based model?

[Michel Dorais]

The question is relatively specific. I will ask the assistant commissioner for human resources, Madame Gauvin, if she wants to address this one in particular.

[Lysanne Gauvin, Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Branch, Canada Revenue Agency]

Thank you.

It is true that we continue to work very actively in order to put in place the competency-based human resource management system. We are also working very closely with the unions in terms of trying to get an understanding of and address some of the concerns they've raised. The commissioner mentioned that there was a report we would be receiving in the relatively near future that will help us to decide what our next steps are going to be.

I think it's also important to understand that since the implementation of the agency, we have taken a number of steps to bring improvements to our whole human resources regime. This includes things like building capacity, in terms of having people who can do evaluations, and bringing managers into the process of evaluating the competencies of their staff.

We're just finishing phase one of that implementation; we're going into a second phase over the upcoming year. All of this has been discussed with the unions, and people tell us that they're onside with those approaches.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Ms. Gauvin.

I have just a quick question.

You worked in cooperation with the CFIB to distribute advance notice information to prepare business people. I'm curious, because there are other business organizations, say the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Did you attempt to construct some type of outreach through that organization, or others, as well?

[Michel Dorais]

We did. I know they've all been contacted now. I don't know if we have arrangements with all of them--we could provide that to the committee--but they've all been contacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Very good. Thank you.

[Michel Dorais]

Some have indicated that they wanted to do it on their own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm a little disappointed in your presentation. It is the first opportunity I have had to meet with officials from the Canada Revenue Agency. You said that five years is too short a time to be able to make fundamental changes. If as members of Parliament we had five years to prove ourselves, I believe we would be very happy. I was elected in 2004. Seventeen months later, there was another election, and I had to produce something more than three pages of text in large print to show that I had done a good job.

What do you base your statement on when you say that you have achieved the following three objectives: provide a better service to Canadians; becoming a more efficient and effective organization, and establishing a closer partnership with the provinces and territories. You say you are convinced that you have made significant progress in these three areas.

Personally, I cannot be convinced: you have not prove it yet to me and I do not have the means to carry out an inquiry in your office. I am disappointed to see that after five years, you are not giving us any evidence of your performance.

Do you have any performance criteria? How can you determine that you have increased your effectiveness?

Having been a taxpayer for at least 40 years, I am worried, like many taxpayers, about the number of people who do not pay tax because they know how to find ways to avoid it. Sometimes in Quebec, where I live, we hear about a particular Quebec government operation under which several hundred extra employees are hired and the cost of this is covered by the additional claims that are recovered. That is somewhat reassuring.

On this issue, I'm wondering if there is a partnership with the federal government in these cases. Is the federal government aware of the additional money that a provincial government, be it Quebec's or another, recuperates by setting up additional enquiries? If so, does it ask for its share? What are you doing about that?