Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes, they are. They're on track to be released. These are obligations to report by a certain timeframe before Parliament. The annual report on people management--we are trying to get back on track within a more reasonable timeframe, and we have put in the systems to do so.

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

Okay.

Earlier this year the government announced its employee innovation program. I'm wondering if you could let the committee know how many submissions Treasury Board has received on this particular program, because this is something that caught our attention in the report as well.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, the employee innovation program is being piloted. I believe it's seven organizations--the Treasury Board Secretariat is one of the seven--and we have received as an organization, I believe, about 21 proposals. Each department and organization will be receiving its own, so we do not receive centrally the proposals for each one of the departments. Each department receives its own proposals.

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

One thing that struck me was paragraph 2.38 in the report from the Auditor General where it states that the average time it took to fill a position has actually increased since the PSMA was implemented. Can you comment on why this is the case, and why it actually takes the same time or longer to fill positions?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are two aspects, I would say. Yes, it did go up for the time of the transition period, and it is now starting to go down, albeit marginally, I would say, but it is decreasing. Frankly, I would say the biggest change around this has been the division of roles and responsibilities, if I can put it that way, between human resource practitioners and managers, ensuring that managers become comfortable with the flexibilities that are embedded in the legislation and to ensure that the due process is also followed.

There were a lot of changes that were brought in as a result of this, for example, informal consultations, the ability to staff the changes to the collective staffing arrangements, how we could match people to competencies and positions. It took a while for people to become familiar, if I can put it this way, and also to become comfortable with exercising flexibilities. When they've been working in a very rules-based environment and then are told, “You can do things differently”, it does take time.

We did see a blip going up, but we're now starting to see a decrease. It's slight, I grant you that, but we are seeing a change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

Now, Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Ms. d'Auray.

Excuse me, Ms. Fraser.

First, two weeks ago, I was sitting on the Committee for Government Operations. We heard Ms. Barrados and her report on the use of temporary help agencies and the lack of follow-up on government contracts. She had other recommendations, but she was also pointing her finger at the Treasury Board for its lack of follow-up and analysis.

Is your study based on cost-effectiveness principles? Perhaps you could also answer me regarding the use of temporary help agencies, and how their use is progressing.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, I would like a clarification, because I do not know what study is being referred to. The study of the Public Service Commission was done over a period of time, and the Secretariat of the Treasury Board supported the commission's work to the extend that we had the data and the information to do so. We made a commitment to work together with the commission to refine the data, but at the same time, we also believe that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons, in many situations, for the use of temporary help services.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Yes, but what is your answer to Ms. Barrados with regard to the comments she made two weeks ago on the very subject of the lack of follow-up and the fact that very often choices made by human resources are not based on cost-effectiveness studies?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I am not aware of this, I did not follow Ms. Barrados' testimony. Thus I cannot necessarily give any answers regarding the statements she put forward.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Then perhaps the person in charge of the modernization project could answer. The human resource study was done by the Committee on Government Operations. I imagine that someone must be aware of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mme Cartwright ou M. MacLeod.

[Susan Cartwright]

Let me answer in the following way. Our review has a mandate that is directly linked to both acts, the Staffing Act and the Labour Relations Act. The commitments that Maria Barrados is referring to are in compliance with our contracting policy. Now this falls beyond the scope of the review that I am currently conducting.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But is the review that you are currently conducting based on a cost-effectiveness study? Are you proposing any legislative changes in your recommendations? Are there any figures to back this up?

[Susan Cartwright]

Yes. Our review will be based on both qualitative and quantitative information.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Will this be a cost-effectiveness study, as the Auditor General requires? A study of costs, of benefits, of options?

[Susan Cartwright]

No. This is not the mandate suggested by the legislation, which consists in reviewing the legislation, its administration and its functions. I think that the data that the Auditor General referred to is the data about our implementation of the legislation.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I have another question for you, Ms. Cartwright. Just now, you told us about all the steps that you have already taken. You have met with many former managers, former senior officials, etc.

Have you seen the internal audits of various departments with regard to human resources, and if so, which ones?

[Susan Cartwright]

We consulted the documents regarding the audits conducted by the Office of the Auditor General. With regard to the internal audits of the departments, we discussed with the deputy ministers involved the progress that was made in their departments on the issues that need to be resolved. However, I did not ask for any copies of these internal audits.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

If they are available on the Internet, it might be useful to get them. In fact, in the main recommendations that come from these audits, there is criticism regarding the lack of performance measurement and the lack of data that could be used to manage and evaluate human resources within the department.

I know that at the top level, you are currently meeting deputy ministers and you are determining how things should be modernized. However, annual reports are made regarding the problems and the ways in which the staffing procedures are being circumvented. In the public service, there is a person in charge of staffing who spends funds to constitute pools of candidates, but the systems are being circumvented.

Let me give you the very simple example of the Exchanges Canada program. The internal audit states explicitly that there are possible conflicts of interest and that the people do not meet the usual eligibility criteria for public servants.

Do you not find, in your conversations with public servants, that the methods being used to circumvent the rules have a depressing effect on their morale?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci, Madame Faille.

Madame Cartwright, I'm afraid you're going to have to hold onto your answer and perhaps incorporate it into another round.

I'll go to Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. d'Auray, on page 5 of your presentation you mention that you're pleased that new requirements to improve labour relations are in place and include mechanisms to foster effective union-management relations. It says all departments “must have”; it doesn't tell me that all departments “have”. So the reality of “must have” versus “have” isn't quite one and the same.

Can you enlighten us as to whether we've seen this, because I believe part of the auditor's report says that multi-level committees have been struck under the new management regime and not all of them are actually functioning? At least, they are not populated in the sense that there are not enough people to actually make them go at this time--or at least at that time.

Can you comment on whether indeed they're there or not?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The labour-management consultation committees have been established in all organizations. I believe one is still in the process of setting it up. I can verify that and get back to you. But my understanding is that they each have one in place.

On the comment about the participation, it was one of the comments the Auditor General picked up from some of the bargaining agents. It's not so much that the departments aren't able to populate and structure these, but that some of the bargaining agents found they were stretched a bit thin to be able to participate in all of these labour-management consultative committees that were established.

So I don't think it was a comment on the fact that the organizations themselves had not set them up. It was more that in the change of this approach or in the establishment of these committees, bargaining agents or representatives were finding it difficult to be able to populate all of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I understand the differentiation between the bargaining agent and the management team. The difficulty is that it really is about changing the cultures. If you're changing the culture, you need to be able to populate them, which means you actually have to help the bargaining agent do that.

As someone who used to do this for a living as a bargaining agent.... Yes, quite often we don't have enough actual people, which means you actually have to help us populate them. Whether that seems fair or not, the reality is that all of us, except for a very few in the bargaining agent world, work for you, not the other way around. So it becomes an issue of how to do that. It is a significant cultural change.

I'm curious, because the initial implementation of the legislation clearly gets driven--and please don't take this as someone who's coming from a particular bent, that somehow I see this as only one dimensional. The legislation implementation is really a top-down driven process to start with, as it should be, because it is coming from this direction down. So the question becomes, how are you seeing it? I recognize the measurement process is just starting and we're trying to collect some data.

The initial feedback from those who are experiencing this cultural change at the workplace level.... What are you hearing from that perspective, as to whether they are still seeing this as being driven at them? Or are you seeing any uptake in the sense that they believe they're now engaged in the actual change?