Government Operations Committee on June 15th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'd like to welcome Madame Barrados, who has appeared before this committee probably more than the Auditor General. You know how many times the Auditor General has been here since we started, but we're talking about previous lives.

Welcome to our committee once more, Madame Barrados. If you would introduce yourself, you know the drill, so we'll go from there. You can give us an update on what's been happening and the great things you're doing, please.

[Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation to appear before your Committee on the Public Service Commission's (PSC) mandate. I have with me from the PSC Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Donald Lemaire, Vice-President, Services Branch.

I would like to discuss the responsibilities of the PSC and our studies and reports to Parliament.

Now approaching its 100th anniversary, the PSC is a unique organization with a long history of protecting merit and non-partisanship in the federal public service. We are independent of ministerial direction and report to Parliament. We also hold an authority necessary for the government to function—the staffing of the core public service under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). There are about 185,000 employees. All other HR functions, such as compensation and classification, are the responsibility of the executive branch.

Our core responsibility for protecting merit and non-partisanship has not changed over the last century. However, the way in which we carry out that responsibility has evolved considerably. Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss our system with the Civil Service Commissioner and the Public Appointments Commissioner in the UK, where the human resources management system has evolved differently from ours.

Under the new PSEA, which came into force on December 31, 2005, we have moved to a highly delegated staffing model. We are no longer running key parts of the staffing system. Instead, we have delegated staffing authorities to the deputy heads. We hold them accountable for ensuring that staffing actions respect the values of merit and non-partisanship, as well as those of fairness, access, and transparency.

We are the external auditor for staffing. We have a staff of about 1,000 highly skilled and professional employees, located across Canada. Our organizational units are responsible for staffing and assessment services, policy, audits, and investigations, as well as corporate services.

As a result of our long history, we have built up a large concentration of expertise in staffing and investigations, and we are building up our audit and monitoring capacity. We have provided you with more information on our activities, as well as on our organizational structure, financial, and human resources.

We report annually to Parliament on the health of the staffing system. Our report is tabled in both houses, through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The new PSEA allows the PSC additional reporting authority, with the power to make special reports to Parliament when we deem the matter urgent or important.

At the time of passage, this amendment was taken to mean that we could transmit these reports directly to the speakers of both houses. However, without specific wording in the act, the reporting mechanism was unclear. The absence of a specific tabling provision has resulted in us tabling our reports through a minister, potentially restricting timely action as envisioned.

I would like to share with you the results of some of our recent work.

Last month we released two statistical studies. The first was on the use of ministerial priorities to staff positions in the public service. Our second study, on time to staff, provides a benchmark that will allow us to assess progress, as we modernize the staffing system under the new PSEA. These statistical studies are the beginning of a series, based on analysis of our data holdings.

We also issued two special audit reports, which we tabled and which stand referred to this committee. Our audit of the Canadian Space Agency found shortcomings in the management of staffing operations. I was particularly concerned about the lack of impartiality in staffing, the quality of the rating tools and assessment methods used, and the fact that human resources advisors and managers had conducted staffing transactions with a poor understanding of the framework governing staffing activities. In addition, the agency did not respect the merit principle and staffing values in 48% of the staffing files we audited. Consequently we imposed conditions on its staffing delegations.

Our audit of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, OPC, determined that significant improvements in staffing systems and practices have been made. The OPC has a staffing strategy in place, supported by plans and policies. It has established communications strategies for management and employees, initiated a self-monitoring process, and is ready to conduct staffing under the new act. Accordingly, we have removed the restrictions previously placed on its staffing authority and established a standard delegation agreement with the deputy head.

We are currently conducting audits of acting appointments to and within the EX group, student programs and readiness for the new PSEA. We are also working on statistical studies in a number of areas such as the extent to which casual employees subsequently become employed under the act. In early October, we will be tabling our Annual Report.

Our recent studies and reports are the result of our new emphasis on oversight as the means for carrying out our responsibility to protect merit and non-partisanship. We would appreciate hearing from your committee on its areas of interest and how we might better serve Parliament in the exercise of our responsibility on its behalf.

We are an independent agency supporting Parliament but because of our staffing authority, must work closely with the executive. However, we look to our relationship with your committee as an important means of maintaining our independence from the executive branch.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Barrados.

We will begin with Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much for coming out this morning. I appreciate the opening remarks. It allows me to get a better understanding of some of the responsibilities in the reports you've tabled in the past.

I have a few questions to begin with. I understand that overall there's been a fundamental change, according to the new act, in how you operate. You indicate in your closing remarks that's it's basically become an oversight. Do you think that's the best approach, and has it been effective thus far?

[Maria Barrados]

There was a lot of debate and discussion when the legislation was changed, and the preoccupation at the time was to ensure that we had a system that was more flexible and more agile and more responsive to a changing workplace and a changing work environment.

I believe that the right direction was taken in that piece of legislation. The fundamental piece of the legislation is that we want managers fully engaged in staffing, and that includes the senior managers of organizations, to make it one of their preoccupations to be fully taken up with staffing and HR issues. That is the direction in this legislation. It has been in place now since January. It's a short period of time. We're watching closely and doing everything we can to support this change, but I think we have to wait and see.

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

Also, you mention in your remarks that in your studies, in addition, the agency did not respect the merit principle and staffing values in 48% of the staffing files that were audited. When you say audited, how many files did you audit? Is this a figure that you feel is consistent throughout?

[Maria Barrados]

Your question relates to the audit of the Canadian Space Agency. It was a sample of over 100 files, and when we see a number that high, that 48%, it is far too high and is a worry. Errors do get made, but that was a consistent pattern of problems.

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

Exactly.

What kinds of errors were there and what was the root cause that drove the number to be so high? Forty-eight percent is a significant number. Ultimately, what processes did they have in place, or what means did they have that they were following, when they were engaged in these hiring practices?

[Maria Barrados]

We go into quite a bit of detail in the audit about what we saw was a problem there. But as I said earlier, what we expect in the new legislation, and it was an expectation that was there before, is that people who are the heads of an organization take the responsibility for HR management and take it on fully. This means that they have to respect the values that are there in the legislation.

What do we expect to see? We expect to see a framework that is in place. We expect to see integrated planning. We expect to see mangers trained and knowledgeable, and then we expect, in everything they do, a follow-through in respect of what we have stated in the legislation. We didn't find that. What we have here is we have problems with the results, problems with the framework, problems with the planning. We have an organization that was not seized and engaged in what is expected in managing human resources.

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

What was the response to this? Because they must have had some justification in their response to the audit. I don't have the audit before me, but how did they justify hiring practices that were not consistent with the merit-based approach?

[Maria Barrados]

At the time the audit was being completed, there was a change in the management of the organization. The current acting head of the organization and their management team has put in responses in the audit, and they have accepted the audit findings and they have accepted the recommendations that are in the audit to make improvements.

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

You indicated here in your opening, and this number has always intrigued me, that there are about 185,000 employees. Is that full-time, part-time, contract? There's always a misunderstanding of that figure, and I want a further elaboration of it. My view is that the number is far greater than the number reported because it just includes core departmental-related employees. Is that true, or is this number accurate?

[Maria Barrados]

There is a confusion in terms of what is the size of the public service. There are many different numbers. It depends upon the definition you put to it.

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

What definition is entailed in this 185,000? This number comes across very consistently, but I want to know what it excludes and what it includes.

[Maria Barrados]

What we're including in that number is the number of full-time and term employees. We include casuals as well. So it's all the people who are employed, but in the core public service. We're distinguishing between the core—and that essentially is those employees who fall under the Public Service Employment Act—and the non-core, which are other public servants such as the Armed Forces, the armed police, and crown corporations. That brings you to a number over 400,000.

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

Yes, that's the number we've heard, but that's non-core. You're saying core—

[Maria Barrados]

“Core” means those who fall under the Public Service Employment Act.

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

Okay.

You mention as well in your recent study that you looked at two reports. The first was the use of ministerial priorities to staff positions and the second one was to allow you to assess progress as we modernize the staffing systems. Could you elaborate on that? What does “modernizing staffing systems” entail? Is it simply hiring practices? Could you elaborate on that component?

[Maria Barrados]

The new legislation, which we were discussing, that came into force December 2005 was called the Public Service Modernization Act. Under that legislation there was a strong suggestion—I guess is the best word, because it wasn't “must”, but “may”—that the Public Service Commission delegate staffing authorities. Given the debate and the approach that was taken with that legislation, we have taken this to mean that we fully delegate.

Before we did that delegation, we went through a process of assessing readiness, because we wanted to make sure there were the basic pieces in place so that we had some of the training, had the policies, had the delegation framework and a receptivity to the framework. That's the first step of readiness.

We did that first assessment to determine that there was a readiness to do the delegations. And at that time, already we conditioned the Space Agency delegation, because we were already concerned with what we were finding in that audit. So there are some that have conditions imposed on them, where it's not a full delegation.

Now what we have to do is continue to ask, as did your earlier question: how ready is the system to take on this new approach to human resource management? That's what we're going to continue to do, because once you get past the policies and the framework, you really do have to get to the behaviours, and you want to see behaviours and practices that have been changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bains. You've gone further than your seven minutes.

Madame Thibault.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Barrados, I wish to thank you and your colleagues for being here. I will be talking about the PSC's revenues during the next round.

Like my colleagues, I think there should be a cost recovery system and that organizations that do not comply with the act should be forced to pay. I, like other parliamentarians, find the non-compliance with staffing principles in 48% of cases to be appalling. Regardless of whether we are talking about 48 cases out of 100, or 480 cases out of 1,000, the figure is absolutely appalling.

Under the Public Service Employment Act, the PSC delegates staffing authority to deputy heads. Under section 15, the commission may revise or rescind an authorization granted under this section.

I would like to come back to the last question. You said that you make sure that an organization is ready and willing to receive a staffing authority. Yet, you said in your report that of the staffing files audited, 48% did not respect the merit principle, and managers do not consider themselves as important actors in human resources management. Either managers are not ready to have staffing authorities because they do not understand their role in human resources management, or else the organization has undergone a complete and total change.

During the 1970s and 1980s, it was believed that human resources management was the responsibility of human resources. A staffing agent simply had to be called to resolve a problem. However, the staffing agent is not responsible for drawing up manpower plans.

Was the agency ready to receive staffing authorities when the commission delegated them? Things happen, and then all of a sudden, there are cracks and everything falls to pieces.

I'm very interested in what preceds the delegation of authority, because 48% is unimaginable.

[Maria Barrados]

The case of the Canadian Space Agency is a serious one. We developed a process to determine whether or not organizations are ready to receive the new authority, which gives agencies and departments more powers.

The preliminary results of our audit showed that the CSA did not comply whit the delegation conditions, and from the outset, we rescinded some of the staffing authorities, including the authority to staff senior management positions. We imposed very strict conditions with regard to the authority before tabling the report, as soon as we noticed problems.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Did you have to revoke any appointments? Non-compliance with the merit principle is serious. If everybody starts appointing somebody they know, favouritism can quickly turn into nepotism.

[Maria Barrados]

We have revoked appointments in other situations. By way of its new approach, the PSC has strengthened its decision-making process. A decision concerning the Privacy Commissioner is one good example. We had imposed conditions and rescinded authorities. At the time, this committee was very much involved in these decisions. In two cases, and in one third case which was rather minor, we imposed conditions after our audits.

We are ready to do so, and we will do so.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Your 2003-2004 report recommended that departments look into certain issues. It is surprising to read that they will be looking into the lack of planning in human resources. According to studies, and specific chapters in the Auditor General's report, there are shortcomings in financial management. Yet, studies continue to be done as to whether or not we should act.

As President of the Public Service Commission, even if you have not held your position for a long time, do you believe that organizations are assuming their responsibilities? Are they integrating human resources planning into their activities as they should be doing, such as in the case of financial management?