Government Operations Committee on May 7th, 2013

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask some questions about your spending profile and also about your performance indicators. I was looking at the report on plans and priorities from 2010-11. You broke your spending down into two areas, resolution and internal services. In the area of resolution, there was spending of $8.3 million, and then moving up to $9.9 million for 2013-14. That's an increase of 19% over three years, so an increase of roughly 6% a year. The total—and I notice you're looking at some reductions in internal services—of $11.9 million is up to $13.8 million for 2013-14. That's an increase of 16% over three years, a little bit less than 6%.

We see an increase in spending year over year. I'm just concerned about the caseload. You mentioned in your remarks a caseload of about 6,500 active cases currently, compared to only 1,200 ten years ago. Will the additional resources that you've been deploying result in a lowering of that caseload, or is this something that's unsustainable? The caseload will just keep getting worse and worse and the backlog will just keep getting worse.

[Guy Lalonde]

As Mr. Olsen said, we're only one party in this regime, so as to whether the workload will keep increasing or not, that question should be for the parties. We don't know what's going to be filed with the board.

But certainly the board is doing everything it can. When you're seeing a shift of funding...yes, I've been carefully reviewing each of our internal services, to start, and some of our other programs, and identifying efficiencies where I can, reducing personnel where I can, and reducing our collection. We've talked about a number of initiatives that we introduced at the board level to make ourselves more efficient, and all these funds are being redirected and reinvested to address exactly that priority and the compensation analysis and research priority. Those are our two priorities where we are reinvesting.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

If I recall, in your remarks you mentioned some smart initiatives, I'd say, in the sense of trying to address problems as far upstream as possible and trying to prevent cases from coming to adjudication to begin with. Are there things you can do with the parties even before they come to your attention and to address a case before it's even filed with your division?

[David Olsen]

I know that we have engaged in what they call “preventive mediation”. This is where the parties have approached the board and have asked for assistance in mediating their disputes prior to the referral of a case to the board. I know that we have had some considerable success in that area as well, sir.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I have just a couple of questions on the performance indicators that you have in your report on plans and priorities. You talked about one of your performance indicators being the percentage of “clients who are satisfied with the impartiality” of the board's services, and you have targeted 75%.

I understand that in anything that's a negotiation or an arbitration, everybody gives away something, so in some ways, I suppose, you could have zero per cent of your clients who are satisfied and you're actually doing a good job. Can you comment, though, on what that means, on why 75% is the target?

[Guy Lalonde]

We conduct a client satisfaction survey every three years. In fact, this year is a survey year, so this fall we'll be launching a survey. We ask a number of questions of the parties that have been through a process here at the board.

We ask them to provide us information on the approach, the impartiality, and the adjudicator or the mediator they faced. We have a number of indicators. In fact, our results are above 80%. Our success rate has been very, very good. It's equally good in terms of our mediation services.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for that.

Finally, another performance indicator is on the number of cases that are “resolved through adjudication in accordance with the principles of law”, with the performance indicator being, “Among decisions referred for judicial review, percentage of challenges upheld in relation to the total number of decisions issued over a 5-year period”. The target is less than 2%.

I'm a bit perplexed by that target. What does that mean? As I read that, it is that the percentage of challenges that are upheld is less than 2%.

[Sylvie Guilbert]

In short, what we aim for is that the Federal Court of Appeal will confirm the decisions issued by adjudicators, and only 2% of the decisions are actually overturned. Now, in any statute, sometimes you have decisions that go to court because there's a fundamental question of definitions of terms, and the court may intervene. We see, quite successfully, that our decisions are upheld most of the time. Only in 2% are the decisions changed and sent back to our board for a redetermination.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier. Your time has expired.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your rounds of questions.

Thank you to our guests from the Public Service Labour Relations Board for appearing before us today.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, we will now suspend very briefly to allow our guests to leave, and we will return in public.

Committee proceedings are now suspended.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

We will now resume our proceedings in public and continue with our next order of business, which is to approve estimates and supply.

Colleagues, with the consent of the committee, just to help expedite this process a little bit, I would suggest that we group like votes together under one category. For example, we would vote on all of the Canadian Heritage votes as one block. Do I have the consent of the committee to proceed in that way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

Very good.

We will start with the votes pertaining to Canadian Heritage, and I will call the question. Shall votes 95, 100, 105, and 110 under Canadian Heritage, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

CANADIAN HERITAGE

Public Service Commission

Vote 95—Program expenditures..........$76,778,690

Public Service Labour Relations Board

Vote 100—Program expenditures..........$12,470,076

Public Service Staffing Tribunal

Vote 105—Program expenditures..........$4,832,445

Registry of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

Vote 110—Program expenditures..........$1,646,091

(Votes 95, 100, 105, and 110 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

Shall vote 1 under Governor General, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

GOVERNOR GENERAL

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$17,126,153

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Shall vote 1 under Parliament, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

PARLIAMENT

The Senate

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$58,169,816

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Shall votes 1, 5, and 10 under Privy Council, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

PRIVY COUNCIL

Department

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$109,008,095

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat

Vote 5—Program expenditures..........$5,597,587

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board

Vote 10—Program expenditures..........$26,063,130

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Shall votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 under Public Works and Government Services, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$1,904,455,475

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$573,195,732

Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc.

Vote 10—Payments to the Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc. or to the Crown corporation to which it is amalgamated for operating and capital expenditures of the Old Port of Montreal Division..........$24,472,000

Shared Services Canada

Vote 15—Operating expenditures..........$1,119,458,822

Vote 20—Capital expenditures..........$178,694,263

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Shall votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 33, 40, and 50 under Treasury Board, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

TREASURY BOARD

Secretariat

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$214,344,779

Vote 5—Government Contingencies..........$750,000,000

Vote 10—Government-wide initiatives..........$3,193,000

Vote 20—Public Service insurance payments..........$2,267,261,397

Vote 25—Operating budget carry forward..........$1,200,000,000

Vote 30—Paylist requirements..........$600,000,000

Vote 33—Capital budget carry forward..........$600,000,000

Canada School of Public Service

Vote 40—Program expenditures..........$42,231,200

Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Vote 45—Program expenditures..........$3,988,757

Public Sector Integrity Commission

Vote 50—Program expenditures..........$5,154,100

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 33, 40, 45, and 50 agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Finally, shall the chair report the main estimates for 2013-14, less the amount voted in interim supply, to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

That is carried. We shall report the main estimates for 2013-14, less the amount voted in interim supply, to the House.

Thank you very much, colleagues. That concludes that business on estimates and supply.

We will now suspend and return in camera for committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]