Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The report was a welcome document and well received. We are committed to reducing the paper burden, the regulations, and the onerous method in which grants and contributions are sometimes regulated or administered. So this commission brought forward some very good ideas. We reviewed them, and I intend to take action in that respect.

At present, we don't have a timetable that I can give you, but I can tell you that it's an issue the staff is working on.

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

Thank you.

I have one last brief question that was a concern of a former member, Madam Thibault, who did stellar work on this committee.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

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

She always came well prepared, and to my estimation, made a valuable commitment to this committee.

On many occasions, she and others discussed the difficulty that we've been having with payroll, which is an ongoing problem, and activities—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You're not getting paid?

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

Quite honestly, I don't think any parliamentarian should ever complain about that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, I'm just wondering what the specific concern is.

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

What I'm suggesting is that there was a great deal of difficulty with the payroll. Perhaps Madam Jauvin could shed some light on the improvements that I hope we will see imminently.

[Nicole Jauvin]

Thank you very much.

Yes, we call them compensation advisers. We're very aware of the fact that a number of them are expected to retire over the next 10 years or so. We have a recruitment campaign going on right now. We've had over 5,800 applications, of which 4,000 were seen as meeting the requirements.

We're expecting to have about 120 positions to offer to these compensation advisers, who'll be coming in from the outside at entry level. We will be training them, and it takes about a year or two to become fully efficient in the art, I would say, of payroll.

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

We have many ongoing problems. There's classification, and sometimes people don't get paid the wage difference for up to a year. Obviously that's not acceptable. Obviously we're making improvements in the hiring processes and the upgrading, but it's crucial to all public servants, who work with a great deal of care and concern, to be recognized at least with a proper paycheque.

So I would like to have some kind of assurance that you're moving in an expeditious manner on this topic.

[Nicole Jauvin]

Absolutely we are, not only on recruitment, but also on the development and training of this very important community for the public service.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Can I add to that? It's a pet peeve of mine as well.

We've received a lot of correspondence on this point. It appears that in the departments where they've centralized the payroll functions, versus those that have not, they are having a huge challenge. It takes about two years to train a payroll adviser, and often as soon as they're trained, they're on to another job. So it's an immediate problem now. Yes, perhaps hiring more in two years' time will help, but something needs to be done now. I think you need to look at the systems that are in place—the centralized system versus the non-centralized systems—because you may have to go back to the non-centralized systems.

There's a real challenge in some departments where new employees are not paid for some time. A lot of these kinds of extras are the areas where the problems are, and that's where I've received a lot of correspondence.

I thought you should know this, because the question has come up many times. It's more than just hiring new people who will come on stream a year or two from now. The problem is here and now, and we have to find a way.

You have to find a way, because it's too important to have people work for three weeks and then not get paid for two months. It's crazy; I mean, it's just unacceptable.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I will now go to Madame Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the President of the Treasury Board and the other witnesses.

Before I ask my question, and I do have a question, I would just like to correct certain timelines in information that the President of the Treasury Board has provided to this committee concerning the Public Appointments Commission and the whole issue of the prospective candidate the Prime Minister had appointed, or wished to appoint, who was rejected by members of the House of Commons.

In fact, all of that took place, in terms of the appointment of Mr. Gwyn Morgan and his rejection by members of the House of Commons, prior to the conclusion of the committee before which the Federal Accountability Act came.

Before that Federal Accountability Act even left committee and was reported back to the House, the creation of a Public Appointments Commission with a clear mandate and clear composition in terms of membership and authorities was created within the committee through amendments brought by members of the opposition following the rejection of Mr. Gwyn Morgan as a suitable candidate to be a public appointments commissioner.

So we are talking about a year ago, Minister. Therefore I find it difficult, in a population of 33 million, that this government has been unable to find another suitable candidate to fill the position at the head of the Public Appointments Commission. It has had over a year, and the legislation received royal assent in December 2006.

I can describe the experience of a previous government that created a new commission. It was the Military Police Complaints Commission. The act came into effect; the day it came into effect, the chair and the other members were appointed; and the ability to receive and begin to investigate complaints under the legislation took place three months later.

So I believe there is no excuse. But whether there is or is not, I simply wish to correct the record in terms of the timeline. The government has had over a year to find another candidate.

My question, Madam Chair, is concerning the government's commitment in the 2006 budget to cut $1 billion over two years from programs and activities that it would deem no longer effective. The supplementary estimates (A) and (B) of 2006 did indeed provide information on approximately $223 million in savings, leaving, therefore, a balance of approximately $776 million to achieve the government's commitment to cut $1 billion over two years. The government stated at that time that the balance would be found in future estimates or in reductions of its expenditures. However, the main estimates for 2007-08 are silent on that balance of approximately $776 million.

First, I would like to ask the minister, has that balance been in fact cut? If it has, would he provide a detailed list of the departments that have contributed to achieving the remaining savings of approximately $776 million to reach the $1 billion mark the government set for itself?

If it has done that, has it conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its 2006 budgetary restraint initiative? That is, how efficient and how effective was that $223 million in savings through the cuts from programs and activities that had been deemed non-effective?

If it hasn't conducted such an evaluation, will it conduct the evaluation? If it has conducted the evaluation, will it provide this committee with the written evaluation of the effectiveness of that 2006 budgetary restraint initiative?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Before I answer the number of questions that were raised, I want to make clear to the committee I made no indications of any timelines with respect to the appointment of Gwyn Morgan. The issue there was the treatment of Gwyn Morgan by members and the concern, as I've heard it expressed by the Prime Minister; that here we had an eminent Canadian willing to do the job for $1 a year, and the rejection of that, as well as the concern of putting another eminent Canadians through that process. And I think that was the concern raised by the Prime Minister and perhaps has contributed to the delay.

In respect of the specific question posed, the details of the $1 billion in savings over two years were provided in the government's news release of September 25, 2006. These savings were found in four key areas. First, we found programs that weren't providing Canadians good value for money. Second, we found unused funds from programs that have already achieved their objectives or had lower than expected take-up. Third, we identified efficiency savings by streamlining some programs. And fourth, we saved money by cutting non-core programs.

Adjustments to approved spending were made in supplementary estimates 2006-07. Adjustments to departmental budgets in future years have been reflected in the main estimates 2007-08. Not all of the savings announced by the government were to spending that has been approved by Parliament. For instance, many of the savings initiatives in the category “unused funds” simply required eliminating the corresponding funding that had been earmarked in the fiscal framework for these purposes in previous budgets.

And I would refer any additional comments to my staff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Perhaps you would supply us with a written answer at some point.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'll go to Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Minister, good afternoon.

I have a few questions, and we do not have much time. Therefore, I will put my questions right away.

Mr. Minister, the last time we met, I spoke of a matter that is of great importance to me because it has to do with my riding. It has to do with the issue of the proportional number of jobs on the Quebec side of the Outaouais area as compared to the number of jobs in Ottawa, or the well-known 25-75 distribution standard. At that time, you told me that you had not been informed about this issue, and I could understand that because you were new in your position. I wanted to know whether anything has been done since your last visit so as to ensure fairness in employment. The Quebec side is short of about 6,000 or 7,000 jobs, according to our figures. Has anything been done about this?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You're talking about the split in the public service—25% being in Gatineau and 75% being in Ottawa.

[A voice]

It's the other way around.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The other way around—75% in Gatineau?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It is as it should be. I gave you a document regarding this. You do not seem to be aware of this. Currently, 18.1% of the jobs are on the Outaouais side, and the remainder is on this side of the river.