Government Operations Committee on Dec. 12th, 2007

[Monique Boudrias]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I may, I will cover the question on classification first.

I'd just mention that we have been looking at the classification issue for many years for the compensation advisers. It started in 1989, where we moved them from a clerk level 4 to a clerk level 5. In 1997 they moved from a clerk level 5 to an officer level 1. In 2000 they moved from an officer level 1 to a level 2. In 2003, after a collective grievance that they pushed forward, we reviewed them again and we maintained them at the AS-2 level.

Right now we have an agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to look at the PA group. That is a very large component. It's a new group, and the AS group is part of the PA group. We have an agreement to review the PA group with the alliance. We haven't yet started the work, but at that point the compensation adviser position will be looked at again. That's from a public-service-wide approach.

But with the presentation we made today in terms of saying that we will move to more technology, transformation, and so on and so forth, obviously we will have to look at those job descriptions in terms of where we're going from a technological standpoint.

So there are two means by which, in the near future, we will be looking at the job descriptions of those compensation advisers.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'm just going to jump in here, because this is very near and dear to my heart and I'm dying to ask a few questions, if the committee doesn't mind--and I'm not waiting for your answer.

You said you've hired 109 new compensation advisers, but it takes up to two years to train them. Have you taken into consideration the number of compensation advisers who are retiring in those two years? What are you going to do? I don't think 109 will even come close to replacing the retiring ones, let alone filling the jobs that are there.

[Monique Boudrias]

Madam Chair, we have a five-year plan, and we've done the human resources plan, linked to the business plans of each department. It has been a collective effort with all the departments to look at where we are going in the next five years.

Consider that the compensation advisers retire when they get the golden numbers. They don't wait; they retire. We know that. When eligibility kicks in, they retire. So we know how many will be leaving, and the plan is for 100 in the next five years. We recognize that we should have done that five years ago to prepare for this. We haven't done it. We know where we are right now. We're moving. Everybody is working together.

And in the meantime, as I mentioned, Madam Chair, we're looking at rehiring former compensation advisers to give us a hand, and we're looking at overtime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We all know that there's a problem with classification. But why wait for the negotiations to do the whole sector? I mean, when you have a very unique, special problem in one part of it, which is compensation advisers, why not address that separately? Let the classification and all the rest of it.... Work it out. It'll take another five years.

Meanwhile, if you don't work it out shortly, you won't have the compensation advisers that you need, and they won't be trained the way you want them to be trained.

I believe you were the deputy minister or associate deputy minister at National Defence, and you looked at the problems there at that time, so you're very familiar with the challenges.

[Monique Boudrias]

Yes, and at Defence, certainly we--

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Just a second. It's a 38-minute bell, so we're okay for another few minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It's a 10-minute bell, we're being informed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

It can't be a 10-minute bell. It's on a motion to adjourn the debate.

You can stay or leave. I want to continue this, because this is very important.

It's a 30-minute bell.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I hear you. I'm staying. This is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes, it is.

I'm asking you these questions because I know you're doing a lot of work, and I really appreciate some of the work you've done, but I don't think you're addressing, in some ways, the immediate problem.

[Monique Boudrias]

Madam Chair, in terms of the immediate problem, what we're saying with the current job description and the current.... There is a difference between complexity and workload, and unfortunately workload is being paid by overtime and not by classification. The classification standard that we have in the Government of Canada does not recognize workload.

So what we're saying here is that we have nothing against them. They're dedicated employees. If their job was worth an AS-3 position across the public service, or AS-4, we would do it. We've done it through the years, and we have a lot of time for our employees who are in the pay business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Some departments aren't under Treasury Board, let's say. They have the ability to do it, therefore the compensation advisers who are working under the Treasury Board then go to the higher-paying jobs, and you lose more employees. I know this is what's happening. It's a real challenge.

[Monique Boudrias]

It's a challenge. As the employer being part of a larger unionized organization, we have to not only look at the classification but go to the bargaining table. We are not separate employers and we don't have the same system as they have. Unfortunately, they are all paid by the Government of Canada, but that's the situation.

What we want to reiterate to this committee is that we are taking care of the community. We are looking into it, and I want to reiterate what I said to the member previously. We won't wait for the big review of the PA group to do something. That's one initiative that is a public-service-wide initiative. We are looking into the situation right now, and with the evolution of the job descriptions based on the changes in technology, we will be reviewing those job descriptions again. If they are at a level higher, we will be looking at that, obviously. We are very committed to those employees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I understand that, but it doesn't solve the immediate problem.

I can talk to some of the people who live in my riding. I have a man who's retired from National Defence. He retired at the end of August. He has not had one penny since he retired. He's been told it takes at least four or five months. He hasn't had his severance pay. He is relying on his family to buy groceries, for God's sake. There's no answer. They just say, “Oh, it has to take that time. Didn't you know? Isn't that too bad?” I find that really despicable, and that's why I'm pushing so hard when I hear of a case like this.

[Monique Boudrias]

I will certainly look into the issue of people who are retiring, Madam Chair and Treasury Board Secretariat, in the next monitoring. We should be making sure that people who are retiring know they have to advise us in advance. If we have cases like this, we should look into that rapidly. If you wish to let us know, we will take that under rapid action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I will.

This gentleman told me they agreed they were going to pay him $30,000 in severance, but they won't give it to him until they decide on his pension, for some reason. So he hasn't had anything.

I'm going to go for five minutes, Madame Bourgeois, and then I'll go to a Conservative, if they want. We will then have to adjourn because of the vote.

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

I'm leaving now. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That's fine.

We'll let Madame Bourgeois continue.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to begin by sharing with you my overall impression of our witnesses' presentations.

On reading your submissions and listening to you, I got the impression that you have the situation well in hand. We committee members do not always have only negative things to say. I just wanted to say that in my opinion, you have, to your credit, identified the problem areas. I always work that way, that is I analyze the situation and then draw up a plan of action.

Mr. Danagher and Ms. Lorenzato, judging from your answers, you do have a good grasp of the problems. I think I understood you, but I would like to have your comments in writing. Could you possibly forward this information to the committee? Mr. Danagher mentioned a second study now under way and said that results should be released in February or sometime after Parliament reconvenes. The aim of the study is to see if the problems initially identified have been addressed. However, we still do not have a clear idea of what the problems actually are. I am confident that when employees are given the tools they need to do their job, this solves some of the problems and the minor irritants.

Getting back to the big problem mentioned by Ms. Jolicoeur, it is indeed a formidable one. I find you quite courageous to talk to us about it. If I understand correctly, Ms. Jolicoeur, some of your systems are 40 years old. When you want your employees to perform effectively, it is important to give them the right kind of tools to do their job. How is it that the government has not looked into this problem? Are you telling us that no decision has been made on this front? I am curious as to how widespread this problem really is.

[Renée Jolicoeur]

The pension project is well under way. In fact, the main components of the project will be in production fairly quickly, that is by 2010. Replacing these systems has been a lengthy process because the system must remain strong. Half-measures are not an option. These systems must be extremely accurate. Therefore, it is a very time-consuming process.

We have been given the necessary approvals. On the pay side, everything is going smoothly. The Treasury Board Secretariat is currently weighing priorities. As you know, the government does have other priorities. However, I have to say that people are aware of the problem and know that it must be addressed. The process will unfold as it should and in the meantime, PWGSC is continuing to work on the project, even though project approval has yet to be given. We have done some research to ensure that the solutions identified are the right ones. I want to assure you that no time is being wasted and that research efforts are ongoing.

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

I would imagine you have an idea of how long it will take to get these systems up and running.

[Renée Jolicoeur]

Yes.

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

How many years have you been working on this?

[Renée Jolicoeur]

In 1997 or thereabouts, work began on a project to overhaul the compensation and pension system. The project was quite ambitious. We wanted to come up with our own solutions to compensation and pension problems and then, to integrate the two systems.

Our solution today is far more modest in scope. We have decided to keep the two components separate because integrating them is extremely complicated. We plan to use automated systems already on the market. All that will remain is to configure them to take into account provisions in collective agreements.

In 2001-2002, we were forced to end the project started in 1997. This led to a court case which took several years to settle. That explains why Public Works had to wait several years before refocussing on the problem. Basically, that is what we are doing at this time. Resolving the pension problem will help considerably to alleviate the workload of compensation advisors. Part of the work is centralized in Shediac.