Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Have you paid out any money yet for this year?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

That is not part of my responsibility as minister. That is the purview of the deputy minister and the clerk.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I congratulate you on not answering the question.

I want to follow up on Mr. Weir's question about the T4s.

We've had overpays in the past, larger than what we're seeing right now. How did we address it in the past so that the T4s were correct?

I also want to follow up on what Mr. Weir was stating. We don't think it should be up to the public servants to follow up on their T4s. A T4 is not the easiest thing to figure out if it's off by $1,000 or $2,000. I would strongly suggest that you find the resources and make sure that the T4s are correct and that you do not just throw them back at the public servants and say that it's up to them to follow up and call the support line if they think their T4s are wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Give a very brief answer, Minister.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Okay. It is interesting that you raise overpayments and T4s, because if you look at 2012, $53 million was paid out in overpayments. In 2013, it was $45 million, and in 2014, it was $78 million. How it was dealt with then, I don't know. I wasn't here. I wasn't part of government then. Whether individuals contacted the department or the department contacted individuals, I don't know. I do know that we are reaching out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. Ayoub, you have five minutes. You may go ahead.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Minister, I'm torn when it comes to the situation in which we find ourselves. As you said, it's unacceptable for employees not to be paid. I hear from people in my riding who are affected by what's going on and are understanding up to a point. They feel for the Miramichi employees they are dealing with, but they are obviously worried. They quickly realized that a huge part of the problem was a lack of training, in particular.

That said, you've inherited a problem you didn't create. You had to climb aboard the train, so to speak. You had to jump on board and try to do your best.

Of the 80,000 or so cases you expected to process, 15,000 remain. Ultimately, that means about 5% of all affected employees still need to be dealt with. I wouldn't go as far as to say that that's an acceptable number, but it is a major improvement, nevertheless. As I see it, there's hope.

The measures you will be taking through the Auditor General are another reason to have hope. I think it's a good idea to be a little more patient than my colleagues in the opposition, who prefer to jump to conclusions in terms of what lies ahead. The Auditor General will have the opportunity to take stock of the situation, and only then will we really be able to lay blame.

Right now, my concern is what will happen going forward to the 15,000 unresolved cases and other cases that might be added to the backlog, even though we hope it will lessen or disappear.

I'd like to know what steps your department is taking to clear the backlog and ensure the situation continues to improve.

What is the relationship like between staff at the Miramichi pay centre and satellite offices and affected employees?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

In terms of the individuals who are working at Miramichi, these employees are working above and beyond. I appreciate all of the hard work they're doing. They know, of course, that it's their colleagues whose pay is being impacted here, and they want to see the issues resolved as much as we do. They take it personally, because they're very dedicated, committed individuals.

For the 15,000 remaining in the backlog, we have put together a group of expert compensation advisers to deal solely with them. We are hopeful that those will be resolved as quickly as they possibly can, of course. But again, these are complicated cases. Some of them go back three years, and they can involve any number of transactions that should have been dealt with but weren't, and were allowed to accumulate. The individuals in this expert group we've pulled together to deal just with those 15,000.... We're hoping that they'll get those dealt with sooner rather than later.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

Some unresolved cases involve temporary employees, specifically, and they are usually students.

Do you process the files of students, who more commonly work during the summer or on a temporary basis, differently than you do the cases of permanent employees?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Students are a special group. I have said from the outset that students don't have savings; students need to be paid for work performed. Traditionally, I'm told, students, like others in a lot of cases, would in previous years work for two to three months for the government before being paid. That is totally unacceptable as well, because students need to be paid. We've put a process in place to ensure that they are paid. I have heard there are students in some departments who have not been paid—not summer students, but students who are coming into the system as new hires in an interim position for a period of time, and we're looking closely at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCauley, for five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to go back to the Gartner report and their comments on contingency planning. They say, “Contingency plans to address unforeseen cut-over and post cut-over issues are normally in place for a program this size. Again, these plans may be in place, but none of the interviewed departments have knowledge of contingency plans.”

They follow up, and this is after the first time it had been delayed, and state that a second delay will have a reputational impact, but not a dollar impact on our public servants or any of the other problems of reputational impact. They say that any “confidence issues with departments will likely be further exacerbated with another delay. This will drive additional scrutiny.”

They go on to say that departments that have made “staffing adjustments in anticipation of the move to pay centre and Phoenix will have to develop contingency plans until the next go-live date.”

Gartner is saying that it could have been delayed as long as they had contingency plans developed. They could not find any evidence of contingency plans, or at least no one was aware of them. Again, I just have to ask, why did we go ahead?

Mr. Liddy, I think you stated that IBM and S.i. Systems said to go ahead. The Gartner report, which I think you referenced as well, said there was nothing about not going ahead, but it gave pretty clear instructions and a pretty big red flag about contingency plans and staffing contingencies, yet there's nothing there. You went ahead anyway, causing a massive $50-million waste of taxpayers' dollars and unheard of disruption for our public servants.

Again, why did we go ahead?

[Gavin Liddy]

The Gartner report was commissioned by Treasury Board. We weren't made aware of the contents of the Gartner report until January 29. When we had a look at it, we realized that it was based on interviews with departments in December. I quote—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Liddy. When did you first get access to it?

[Gavin Liddy]

On January 29.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

January 29 is when you first got the Gartner report?

[Gavin Liddy]

Yes, in draft format.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Into Public Services or into Treasury Board?

[Gavin Liddy]

Public Services and Procurement Canada. We weren't aware that there was a report being commissioned by Treasury Board.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But you did get the report in January?

[Gavin Liddy]

In a draft format, yes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But you got the report in January, because I'm pretty sure—

[Gavin Liddy]

Let me quote—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm pretty sure. Sir, let me finish.

[Gavin Liddy]

Let me quote. Can I quote?