Government Operations Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

It was a lacklustre showing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

It was on division. It is adopted on division, then.

Thank you.

(Motion as amended agreed to on division)

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

The hands weren't raised as high as they could have been.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you. I love to try to be a cheerleader where I can.

I did want to thank members, especially from the chair here, because we had the prospect of having a long and arduous debate with tie votes and all kinds of interesting things. So thank you for letting me off the hook.

We have to suspend for about five minutes while we bring in our anticipated witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I call the committee back to order.

Colleagues, we were suspended briefly, and we have our witnesses with us now.

From the Public Service Commission of Canada, we have with us Maria Barrados, president, and Monsieur Lemaire, Monsieur Ste-Marie, and Monsieur Bilodeau, all of whom are active in the various components of the Public Service Commission.

I'm going to turn the microphone over to Ms. Barrados. She has identified three or four issues that were recently reported on. Members would like the opportunity to mine down a little bit and determine some of the public policy and public interest issues from our perspective in Parliament.

Ms. Barrados.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you to discuss issues and concerns that have been raised by your committee. I am here today with Donald Lemaire, senior vice-president of policy; Jean Ste-Marie, acting vice-president of the audit, evaluation and studies branch; and Denis Bilodeau, director general, investigations.

This committee was recently provided with information on key issues with respect to your motion of April 2, which I hope will be a useful reference for you. I will be focusing my remarks on the actions taken by the Public Service Commission that address your key concerns. I will also speak briefly about two special reports that were tabled in Parliament on May 14.

Let me begin with the issue of temporary, casual, and term hiring under the Public Service Employment Act. We've done a great deal of work in this area because we continue to be concerned about permanent recruitment through a temporary workforce. When managers recruit from a temporary workforce, the long-term needs of the organization are not necessarily being taken into account, and the values enshrined in the preamble of the PSEA, including access, transparency, fairness, and representativeness, may not always be respected.

We have updated our data on indeterminate, term, and casual hiring, and this information was shared with this committee. We found that there has been some improvement in the area of indeterminate hires, with more public servants having entered directly into the permanent workforce. For 2008-09, 35% of all indeterminate hires had no prior experience in the federal public service, as compared to 16% in 2000-01. However, we also observed a new trend of concern: the increasing proportion of casual workers who move directly into the public service. This rate has increased from 4% to 15% during the same time period.

We will continue to monitor these trends. We will be providing additional information in our 2008-09 annual report.

This brings me to the concerns expressed by members of the committee with respect to the use of private firms for the hiring of temporary help. We share the committee's concerns and feel that there is a potential risk to the integrity of the staffing system. Our challenge is to develop a robust methodology to assess this situation.

I now turn to the issue of employment equity hiring, EE. Our 2007-2008 annual report did not include statistics on the appointment of visible minorities because we were concerned about the validity of the available data.

We have been working with the office of the Chief Human Resources Officer to have a better understanding of the differences between EE recruitment rates derived from using self-declaration information collected through the Public Service Resourcing System, and those derived from employee self-identification processes.

First, we looked at how EE is gathered through self-identification, and compared approaches and practices across several departments. The findings have been shared with you. There is a clear need to improve the way in which the self-identification process is managed. We have identified areas where improvements can be made, ranging from more systematic tracking and follow-up to more timely and focused communications in promoting EE and self-identification.

We will continue to work with the Chief Human Resources Officer. We will also be addressing the results of the drop-off study and providing assessment of the recruitment rates of all EE groups for the past three fiscal years in our 2008-2009 annual report.

Another issue of concern to the committee is classification. The PSC has updated some of the data used in the report Expenditure Review of Federal Public Service Compensation Policy and Comparability to determine if shifts in classification are continuing to take place, particularly in those organizations governed by the PSEA. We found that the trends identified in Jim Lahey's report continue to apply to these organizations.

We found that the earlier trend towards more knowledge-intensive workers is continuing, with various aspects on the occupational structure. As well, some select occupations groups continue to have shifts to higher occupational levels. We also found that the AS, PM and ES groups are continuing to grow while the CR group continues to shrink. We have also provided this information to the office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, as classification falls within their mandate.

Committee members also wanted to know more about the process that had been put in place to delegate appointment authority to deputy heads and to hold them accountable for the staffing decisions made through their delegations. We have provided detailed information on this process to your committee. We've also outlined areas where the PSC has not delegated specific authority, for instance, with respect to priority administration.

I now turn to the two special reports tabled in Parliament on May 14. The first report concerned the unauthorized possession and use of the PSC second language evaluation tests. PSC is responsible for developing the tests that are used to determine the level of proficiency of public service employees. We have delegated language testing to more than 1,200 language assessors. During 2007-08, more than 69,000 tests were administered to evaluate reading and writing expression.

We initiated the audit after a public service employee who attended the Nec Plus Ultra Language School noticed that practice tests applied by the school were similar to the government tests. Our audit concluded that the NPU Language School was in possession of and used the PSC's SLE reading and writing tests without the authorization of the PSC. The evidence showed that the language school students had much higher success rates on these two tests than the general population. The evidence also showed that NPU gave its students practice tests that were practically identical to the PSC tests.

We take this matter very seriously and are committed to taking the necessary steps to maintain the integrity of our tests. As a result of the audit, the PSC is replacing the two tests that have been affected. We estimate that it costs about a million dollars to develop a totally new test with four different versions. The 114 NPU students who took the tests while on their training over the period audited will be retested by the PSC within the next two years. We are implementing the recommendations of this audit and have undertaken measures to tighten test security.

The second audit looked at how departments have been using the federal student work experience program. It is the primary vehicle through which federal departments and agencies recruit students for temporary jobs. In 2008-09, 80,000 applications were received from students. We received 13,000 requests for student referrals--this includes re-employment--from federal departments across Canada. From those requests, 10,031 students received temporary jobs through the program. The audit concluded that overall, the program is operating reasonably well as a staffing tool. It identified a small proportion of unsatisfactory appointments, including a 6% rate of pre-matching, a significant improvement over a 2003 PSC study which found a 19% rate of pre-matching.

Under this program, students can be bridged into the public service. The bridging mechanisms allow managers to hire recent post-secondary graduates who participated in the federal student work experience program or other student employment programs. The audit also found that one in three student bridging appointment processes were unsatisfactory. Improvements need to be made in how these appointments are made.

Mr. Chair, I trust that the information provided to the committee responds to the concerns that have been raised. The Public Service Commission has been entrusted with a very special mandate by the Parliament of Canada. I would like to thank you and committee members for taking a strong interest in the work of the PSC.

We are now happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you very much.

You have again raised for us, and with some progress, a number of issues in relation to which I know that members have concerns. Most of the issues are what I would call bite-sized, addressable, not huge macro issues. But before I turn to questions, could I ask you, for our record, for the benefit of all the members, if you would outline for us what is meant by the terms “indeterminate, term, and casual hires”, so we're all speaking the same language here.

[Maria Barrados]

Indeterminate hires are permanent hires. So it's a permanent position in the public service.

A term hire is an engagement, a hiring in the public service for a specified period of time.

A casual hire is a hire that is for 90 days only. An individual can only be working in a department for 90 days per year. There is no merit test for casual hires. So casual hires can be done in a very casual way, if you like. There is no process required around casual hires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay, thanks very much.

Now we'll go to eight-minute rounds. First is Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you very much, everybody, for being here with us again. Thank you for providing your reports and for providing this information today.

I have a couple of questions. I have a question about the casual workers and this trend that you note in the material provided today. I also want to ask some questions about the language testing issue.

First, in the material you provided today you've observed a new trend of concern, that being the increasing proportion of casual workers who move directly into the public service. The rate has increased from 4% to 15%. Can you speak a little bit to that?

A casual worker is someone who can work a maximum of 90 days in a year. I'm assuming that can be a day at a time or it could be 90 days all together. Could you speak a little bit to what types of work the casual workers do, why you think this trend has changed, and what your concerns are? I know it's awfully difficult to answer all that in a very short period of time, but can you try do it relatively quickly so that I can get to the language testing question as well?

[Maria Barrados]

I'll try to be as efficient as possible.

The concern I have regarding casual workers is that you get somebody for a short period of time to meet an immediate need, but there is no merit test and no language requirement. There are no requirements that are statutory or regulatory, as you have for other kinds of hires. There is no national area of selection requirement. It is really very much up to the manager as to what kinds of requirements may be imposed. There are none of the standard tests we have about entry into the public service.

When somebody has one of these jobs, it gives them an opportunity to learn about the public service and to have connections, and it then gives them an advantage over other Canadians in entering into permanent jobs. Casuals can be at any level; they tend to be administrative support, but not always.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If they apply for a permanent job, are they somehow grandfathered, or do they have to go through the same merit testing and meet the same objective requirements as a new hire would have to?

[Maria Barrados]

When they apply, they have to go through the same tests as any new hire goes through. The issue I have is that they have an enormous advantage because they know government, they know government systems, and they understand the requirements better than somebody who's coming completely from outside.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much for that.

I'll go on to the language testing issue. You expressed real concern about what has happened, and we, of course, share that concern. We also have a concern about what has happened with the group of students who may have not done anything wrong and who may now be jeopardized--wrong word--who may be put into a situation that may be regarded as unfair to them simply because of a smaller number of people who, in effect, cheated.

Have you conducted any kind of legal assessment to ensure that procedural fairness has been accorded to all of those affected?

[Maria Barrados]

In the audit work we did, we were very careful as to where we placed our concern and what our preoccupation was. Our preoccupation was that the school had copies of our tests and used them inappropriately. They used them when they should not have used them. We are not placing blame on the individual students who attended that school; from all the evidence we have, they went there for language training, and the school had a good reputation for training people.

The preoccupation I have here is that when I look at the results, these people who have gone to this training school have a phenomenal rate of exemptions. An exemption is the certification we give people to say that their level of the second language is so good that they never have to be tested again. If your level is really so good that you're exempted, you should have no problem redoing the test, because that's what exemption is supposed to mean.

You asked a question about procedural fairness. We are implementing our statute, which requires us to be satisfied that people meet the requirements of the job; if the requirement of the job is that you have a certain level of bilingualism, we have to be satisfied that you meet that level, and in this case we are not satisfied that it has been met. What we have done with the individual students, however, is give them two years within which to be retested. If there is some special circumstance that we may not have appreciated during our work, we will examine each case individually to see if there should be some other treatment.

Nobody at this point is jeopardized in their current job by those test results. They have a two-year period within which to redo the test, and then they would revert to the results they had before they went to this language training school and had those test results.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I find it astounding that a new test would cost upwards of $1 million. For those of us who try hard to improve our French, the lessons, books, and sample tests seem pretty comprehensive; at least that's my impression. It is astounding that it would cost more than $1 million. Can you elaborate on why this is so costly?

[Maria Barrados]

To establish these tests, we use committees of experts, groups of specialists. I want to make sure there is absolute confidence in our assessment methods. I am providing a total all-in cost. My costing includes the time of the people who develop the test, the time of the experts who assess the test, and the cost of the pilot test. There's one test with four versions. When I replace the one version, it is not $1 million; it would be only one quarter of that cost. If I run out of the four versions, then I'm back to doing a totally new test. It is a function of totally costing something. If I gave you a marginal cost, it would be a much lower number.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I understand the need to have experts and specialists, but as a business person I must say that flags go up when I hear about the use of committees of experts and groups of specialists all involved with a language test in an officially bilingual country, in which we have so many people who function in one or the other or both languages. It seems strange that this would require what sounds like a whole bureaucratic level. I'm just raising that concern. Feel free to speak to it if I'm not knowledgeable enough.

[Maria Barrados]

If I have ten people developing an entirely new test for a year, I'm spending $1 million. A lot of the costs you see are marginal costs or a different kind of costing. If you think about ten people developing a totally new test, that's the kind of cost you're incurring.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Is there a need for ten people to spend a year developing a new language test? I may be ignorant of the process, but it strikes me as a large figure. I say this in light of your concern about the integrity of the test. This is a challenge, because it costs so much to develop a new test. My thrust was this: does it really need to cost $1 million? Do we really need ten people to spend a whole year developing a language test?

[Maria Barrados]

Actually, if we want to do this right, I suspect that we're going to be spending even more on it. If we want to develop it to a standard that is a standard where we want to go, and we want to be sure that we have the whole thing done in the best and most secure manner, we need something far more automated. We need a larger bank of questions and a testing process that offers a unique test to every person who comes forward to be tested. The actual operation of this would be a lot cheaper than the paper and pencil system I have. The investment of putting it in place would be higher.

I'll tell you why this is so important. The way our statutes are struck, we're committed to a bilingual public service. We have a requirement that language proficiency is an element of merit, which the Treasury Board as the employer defines as a standard that has to be met. We have to be assured that this standard is met. We also have to be assured that we're giving everybody fair and equal treatment.

I can assure you that I get more complaints about language assessments than anything else. It is difficult for adults to learn a second language. I have to be certain that I'm meeting the standard, so that we actually have the level of proficiency that is being sought. I also have to be certain that we're being fair, which means that I have to have expert opinion telling us that the standard we set is accurate and equitable. That's also why, when we have a breach like this, we treat it so very seriously. I am concerned that I now have people in their jobs who don't meet the required standard of language proficiency. It's required for the public service to function, and it's required by the statute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois, you have eight minutes.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Barrados. I am pleased that you are with us today. Good morning, gentlemen.

First of all, let me thank you for these reports. To a very great extent, they answer the questions we sent you.

On page 2 of the section entitled “Response to Government Operations and Estimates Committee Request“, you say the following:The PSC is concerned about private firms being used to hire temporary help in order to circumvent the Public Service Employment Act.

When the committee raised a red flag and asked the question, your reply was that you were not sure but that it concerned you. It is now official that the object is to circumvent the act. You described it as such in no uncertain terms.

Has this happened? Do you have examples? I imagine so because of the words you used.

[Maria Barrados]

We did three things. First, we looked at the statutes and the act. Lawyers concluded that the way in which the program was operating was a risk. To get more information, we also looked at the process used, the public accounts and the operation of Public Works and Government Services. We have some examples, but not enough. Mr. Jean Ste-Marie, who was in charge of that task, may want to add something.

[Jean Ste-Marie, Acting Vice-President, Audit, Evaluations and Studies Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Yes, certainly.

The difficulty with hiring people from private firms, is, as was said earlier, that it could be perceived as giving a distinct advantage to one category of persons. As you know, those people can enter the public service. In a situation like that, the values of the public service are called into question. Access to the public service is an example.