Government Operations Committee on Nov. 28th, 2007

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I understand that. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying moneys have been put in different envelopes throughout the different ministries, departments, and agencies across the country by the government, but if you're not making the appointments, you're not really fulfilling the mandates when you put those envelopes in. If you're saying you need money for 10 or 40 positions and you only have 0.5, there's a problem there.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

We recognize that there is an issue with organizations, in some cases, where the vacancies are not necessarily being filled at a fast enough clip.

Not all vacancies are filled. In some organizations the enabling legislation provides for a certain number of positions. The operational needs of the agency are not necessarily for the maximum number allowable. In fact, in some cases the chairperson will say “don't give me the maximum, it's unwieldy, I'd rather have this number”, which is a more manageable and more workable number.

So not all vacancies are automatically filled.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm very intimidated by the people who come from the Privy Council Office as well. We're not used to meeting with them.

Ultimately, you're the top agency: you control the Treasury Board and the Canada Public Service Agency. Employees told us about their difficulty in obtaining their salary benefits. They have made enormous efforts for that not to happen again. Our committee has also taken measures so that they can receive their salaries.

Are you aware of this problem, which still seems to affect certain employees? Are you solving it?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

We're entirely aware of the problem and of the discussions you've had on this question with the people who have appeared before your committee. I thought I heard this afternoon that Ms. Boudrias was to appear before you soon on this subject on one or two occasions. It's the Agency that has the leadership to address this problem.

She observed the scope of the problem by first providing an overview of the various departments in order to note deficiencies and then by examining with those departments the corrective measures that could be taken to correct the problem. The Agency intends to ensure follow-up with the departments so that, where there are problem cases, they are addressed and resolved.

I don't have the details. As I know that Ms. Boudrias will be appearing before you, I'll let her have the pleasure of bringing you up to speed on what is being done to solve this problem that we have observed and that we want to solve.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You just said “that we have observed”. Do you have greater powers than those of Ms. Boudrias? Can you go faster so that this problem no longer reoccurs?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

To my knowledge, this is a problem that is not amenable to as quick a solution as simply seeing the Privy Council Office say that it should be solved.

Some departmental human resource sectors have personnel shortage problems and ad hoc needs, as a result of which there is an increase in staffing requests. This has had the effect of increasing the workload and, consequently, of causing delays. The problems are numerous, and the solutions to those problems will also be numerous. There isn't an easy solution that can be immediately implemented. However, the division of responsibilities related to human resource management in the public service is indeed the jurisdiction of the Agency, which must exercise its leadership in the human resources community and see that this problem is quickly solved.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Very good.

My second question is for Casper Bloom, from the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

I worked a little with the Labour Relations Board regarding psychological harassment. I introduced a bill at the time on psychological harassment, and I was very disappointment by the support of the Labour Relations Board in negotiations with the employers, the departments in particular.

What measures are you taking, first, to find a solution to psychological harassment, which is proven, and, second, to help employees so that harassment does not reoccur?

[Casper Bloom]

First you must understand our mission and purpose. When a party appears before one of our grievance adjudicators to decide a specific issue... An employee in a particular department may have raised a psychological harassment problem and filed a grievance. The grievance follows its path in the department itself. In some cases, it winds up before our tribunal. This is the adjudication part. Our adjudicators hear the parties personally or through their union representatives. They present their case and the adjudicator eventually decides the question and makes a decision. We have no settlement responsibility or duty.

Another function of our board is precisely to resolve disputes. That's the question you're asking. That's another section of our board. We have a group of trained people who are skilled and experienced in mediation. When there is a psychological harassment problem and either of the parties seeks our intervention, we go to the department in question to solve the problem through mediation.

Our mediation service is currently one of the best in the country, and I mean “in the country”. We have what we call a batting average of more than 80%. When we send in mediators, at the request of the parties, to solve psychological harassment cases or other problems—because a lot of problems can be raised—we succeed in resolving more than 80%.

You mainly emphasize the issue of psychological harassment. I don't have the figures, but I can tell you that we have less success in that area because it's a very difficult problem to solve. Having worked in the private sector for more than 30 years, I had to deal with this kind of problem. So I know that psychological harassment problems are very hard to solve. If the problem can be solved, our board will solve it. We've had very good success in this area and others.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

That's fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks again to the witnesses for being here.

I took some solace in the fact that my colleague across the way, who's been here for four years, still finds some of this rather confusing. I certainly, after almost two years, don't claim to understand it.

My question is to Mr. Bloom. You alluded in your comments to the fact that you're hampered by this fact that you need to appear to request the funding through the supplementary estimates. Then you seemed to express some hope that maybe this committee would help you with that.

My question would be, how can this committee help you, and what kind of steps have been taken to address this earlier? What's the roadblock?

[Casper Bloom]

What we have done each year since 2002-03, effectively, is make our request through Treasury Board. Treasury Board understands the problem, and they have tried to help in their way, but it's never been successful. They have provided us with temporary funding, because they understand that we need the money if we want to continue having the compensation analysis research service operate and function properly.

So they have provided us with the funds on an annual basis. But each time, we have to go before them. We have to prepare a business case, we have to explain, we have to justify, and eventually we get the money. But the time it takes, particularly the time this gentleman with me spends working on that business case each year, doing it and re-doing it, to me is a waste of our time and energy, when this is taxpayer money that's being spent and we can use it more productively.

This is one area that to me seems like what you could call a no-brainer, something that should be done; it should be in our core funding.

If Parliament in its wisdom gave us this responsibility, which it has done, and with no funds attached to it, there's a disconnect somewhere. The very fact that it gave us this responsibility—and we accept it voluntarily and willingly, because it belongs with us.... But you have to give us the funds to be able to carry it out.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

My question is.... First of all, I don't want Mr. Hamel to be unemployed, but I am concerned about the use of taxpayer money, as we all are around this table. Does this committee have the authority to do what you're asking, or where does the authority lie? I guess that's really the crux of it.

[Casper Bloom]

It seems to make sense to me. I'm not giving you authority that you may not have; I'm just venting. I've been saying to whoever will listen to me that this is an issue that has to be dealt with.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Who has the authority? I guess that's the question.

[Casper Bloom]

Who has the authority? Well, Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance....

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

The only authority we have, Mr. Albrecht, is, if we are all in accordance, passing a motion recommending that they give them the ongoing funding. That's the authority we have.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I'm not in a position to do that, because as I said earlier, I don't understand this entire thing. But it seems, from a commonsense perspective, that this would be the way to go, and I think we should look into it further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

To be honest, it is the role often of Treasury Board to make different departments and agencies prove the need for funds, and I would say that after five years, they may very well have a good case.

Are you finished, Mr. Albrecht, or are there any...?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Does anybody else want to go?

[An hon. member]

Not right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Okay. For the Liberals, are there any questions left?

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like you to tell me how many appointments the Prime Minister must make in the course of a year.