Public Accounts Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Benoît Long]

No. When you mention employees, I think we're looking at two different sets of organizations. The first four were a mixture of part-time and full-time members. There were quite a number of them, and some of them worked one day a month rather than full time or part time. That was part of the design of the SST: both to encourage a more consistent and standardized set of processes and also to ensure that the learning curve, the experience that would come with members who are dedicated full time to reviewing cases, would actually improve the productivity that goes along with reviewing those cases.

Previous tribunals would have had part-time and in some cases occasional members, and the productivity of that type of staffing is now being seen and realized. Initially, of course, that transition was quite challenging.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Who made the decision to start with 21 employees or that number of adjudicators, in light of what we have now, with maybe a little more than 100 adjudicators? How many adjudicators do you have now to deal with this backlog? I know you had to go outside. You said you got lawyers and different people from the outside to help you reduce this list.

Madame Brazeau?

[Murielle Brazeau]

Let me help my colleague.

I arrived one week before the tribunal was created, and there were 21 staff. A number of executives were hired, and they were hiring staff to sustain the organization. They were hiring out. They hired individuals from the four former tribunals, but they were also looking for different strengths and were looking outside. They were hiring indeterminate employees, but also a lot of part-time or casual employees just to help out the tribunal at the outset.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

To Mr. Shugart through you, Mr. Chair, when you guys decided to make this transition, going from the four tribunals to the one, who told you to get it done in this short time period?

[Ian Shugart]

That was an undertaking of the department. At that point the tribunal had not been created and the administrative support service agency had not been created, so the initial work for the transition was undertaken by the department.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Did the department give you a transition plan?

[Ian Shugart]

Yes. We had transition planning, but as I have indicated, I think in retrospect that the period of time that was taken to do this and ensure that the tribunal had a complete and a good launch was far too short.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All right.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have one minute.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I want to ask you questions with respect to the initial decisions they made and how many were overturned.

In the 2014-15 fiscal year, 35% of initial decisions were overturned by the department at the reconsideration stage, and a further 67% of appeals were overturned by the tribunal.

It occurs to me that there is a problem internally. If you're always overturning decisions made at the outset at that high a rate, there should be concern. What have you done to alleviate that concern, to address this?

[Ian Shugart]

I will ask Benoît to add to this, Mr. Chair.

As I indicated with respect to the cases in the pipeline in the backlog, we introduced this thinking about a balance of probabilities. We frankly were just much more aggressive in going through those cases and determining the likelihood of success, either because the situation had changed or it truly was 50:50 or in that neighbourhood. We were much more decisive and erred on the side of granting the request more than would have normally been the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. Your time is up.

We'll move to Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Godin, you have five minutes.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

Our responsibility at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to maximize the public data or the efficiency of the services provided to Canadians.

My first question is for the Auditor General.

Mr. Ferguson, have other reports been done on this system in the past 50 years?

[Michael Ferguson]

No other report was done by our office. This is the only one.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Okay.

On reading the report and the recommendations, I find it disappointing to see everyone reacting and wanting to improve the service because, first, I think that the managers have to have the responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of the systems in place. How do you explain today's reaction to the report of the auditor general who took two years to conduct the audits? Then you come and tell us that you will put measures in place to be even more efficient. I do not want to destroy the service, because good things have been done and improvements have been made, but it seems that the managers have to be accountable to the guidelines in place. I am not getting the feeling that that is currently the case.

My question is for the deputy minister and then I would like to hear from the people from the two other services.

[Ian Shugart]

The other services did not exist before this report. It may be up to them to decide whether it is useful to add anything else. However, as I said in response to Mr. Christopherson, on behalf of the department, I take responsibility for past flaws and mistakes.

I would indicate that the reason we have these audits is to go right to the heart of programs and bring the spotlight to bear on what is not working in those programs.

As I indicated, in many of our areas we are labouring under the legacy of old systems. This is too much a paper-based system, which adds to the time lapse in making decisions. Actually managing the paper constitutes a significant delay in the process.

We are moving off that kind of system progressively. We have known for some time in our business planning in the department that a modern service to Canadians requires moving to electronic systems progressively. We have been doing that—for example, in the employment insurance area—but it frankly takes time and it takes resources for that to work its way progressively through the system.

The delays in the old system were due partly to the multiplicity of tribunals. The proposal to move to the Social Security Tribunal was intended to make that more efficient and expedite decisions. We've talked about the planning process, which was deficient, but you asked about the situation before the fact.

That was all part of an effort to improve that service. Between these legacy systems, I assure—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Deputy Minister, I have to interrupt you because my time is quite limited and I have other questions to ask.

From what I understand, you tell people with disabilities and terminal illnesses that it is not your fault, that you have a backlog of paperwork, and that you are unable to be more efficient. I think you should put the necessary measures in place in your department and not wait for the release of an auditor general's report in order to improve your service. I am very disappointed in your response. I respect it, but I am disappointed.

Are there any mechanisms within your department for regular and recurring self-assessment?

[Ian Shugart]

Absolutely. As in all departments, we have an internal auditor. We have an assessment team. We always had executives to manage the programs and we still do. The people in charge have to report their findings. There are mechanisms. Obviously, they are not perfect, but they exist and we are using them more and more often.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, sir.

Now we will go to Mr. Arya, please, for five minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the deputy minister mentioned that he did not know the size of the caseload. On April 1, 2012, there were 4,000 in the backlog of appeals, and the trend was gradually increasing.

Obviously you must have had an indication that it was not going to go down below 4,000. Instead, it was creeping up. You may not have known the exact number of 6,500, but even with that, to put it very mildly, it is quite surprising that without any infrastructure and without adequate resources, systems, or operational processes, this tribunal was opened.

Ms. Brazeau, you mentioned that you joined a week before it was opened. Were you aware soon after joining of the mess that you inherited?

[Murielle Brazeau]

It did not take a long time to realize. On day one, when we received these 9,000 cases from the four former tribunals, we realized that we had a lot of work on our plate. We only had 21 employees. The management team was working very hard to staff at the time. We were trying to determine how many members we needed. We knew we needed more decision-making—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

You did not know how many members were needed when you joined?

[Murielle Brazeau]

The legislation allowed for a certain number of members at the time, but more members were required, and they were hired gradually, until 2014, when we reached a maximum—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

It took more than one year to hire the numbers required, and in the meantime the backlog kept on increasing.

[Murielle Brazeau]

The members were hired gradually. The members of the tribunal are appointed by the Governor in Council. As soon as I arrived, we took note of what was going on. We had contacts with the department—