Government Operations Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order, as it is 3:30.

Welcome to the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Today we are pleased to welcome one of our favourites, and one of the hardest-working officers of Parliament, the president of the Public Service Commission of Canada, Maria Barrados. Welcome, Madam Barrados. I'll ask you to introduce the guests you have with you, and then make your presentation. We will have questions following that.

Madam Barrados, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I am here with Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Elizabeth Murphy-Walsh, Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch. We are here to discuss the Public Service Commission's 2010-2011 Annual Report and its audit reports for 2011, which were tabled in Parliament earlier this week.

The PSC is an independent body accountable to Parliament for safeguarding the integrity of staffing in the public service and the non-partisanship of the public service. The PSC is free from ministerial direction in the exercise of its executive authorities for hiring and non-partisanship, but it is accountable to Parliament. We report annually to Parliament on our activities and results and we welcome the opportunity to discuss them with your committee.

The PSC's 2010-2011 Annual Report covers the fifth year of operation under the Public Service Employment Act. As of March 2011, there were 83 organizations, representing over 216,000 individuals, to which the PSC has delegated its appointment authority.

There was no growth in the core public service in 2010-2011, as compared to 3.4% in the previous year. We saw less recruitment, especially new permanent hires, with no change in departures. Fewer young employees joined the public service in 2010-2011, and, for the first time in a decade, there was a decrease in the number of employees under 35 years old.

Although there is less hiring, there is still significant intake. Over 1,250 students entered the public service through post-secondary recruitment as opposed to nearly 1,650 the year before.

There was a marked reduction in not only hiring, but also internal staffing activities—15.2%—compared to last year.

The government has entered a period of fiscal restraint. There will be pressures on the staffing system. We see continuing interest in public service jobs—but it will be for fewer jobs.

The PSC is responsible for managing a priority program for displaced employees in the federal public service. Our legislation provides for a priority person to be appointed ahead of all others to vacant positions in the public service, if the person meets the essential qualifications of the position. This program is important in providing fairness to displaced employees, and we need to make sure that it works well. An evaluation identified areas for strengthening the program, and we are making a number of changes to make it more robust and rigorous.

In addition, our analysis of 19 audits over the past two years showed that in 11 % of appointments, problems were identified in obtaining priority clearance. As well, proper use and better planning of both the permanent and contingent workforces are essential to ensuring that managers are able to respond to their needs in a flexible way, while respecting the values in the PSEA. We believe, however, that targeted hiring must continue to ensure succession in the public service and to maintain a public service that delivers results for Canadians.

I would like to now turn to our overall assessment. Based on our oversight activities in 2010-11, we have concluded that overall, merit is being respected in the staffing system. And our audits show that managers are doing a better job of applying the merit test. Organizational performance in the management of staffing continues to improve. We saw positive trends in hiring strategies, which better support staffing priorities, as well as improved HR capacity. However, we have concerns about the quality control of appointment processes, the lack of appropriate assessment and documentation of merit, and the poor rationales for non-advertised appointment processes.

In addition, there continues to be a small proportion of cases where merit has not been met. This is usually the result of error, omission, or improper conduct. As well, there are still too many cases where merit is not demonstrated in the staffing files or other organizational records.

The PSC continues to be concerned about employees' perceptions of the fairness of the overall staffing process. About a quarter of employees persistently feel that the overall process is not at all fair, or fair only to some extent. We are also concerned that the continued low rate of external appointments for persons with disabilities will have a negative consequence for their representation in the public service over the long term.

With respect to non-partisanship, we find that a small proportion of public servants are politically active. In 2010-11, the PSC received 94 candidacy requests from public servants. Still, we are concerned that public servants are not well informed about their rights and responsibilities with regard to political activities. We believe that more effort is required to properly safeguard this core value.

Now, I would like to turn to our audits. This year the commission examined 11 organizations, and it placed additional conditions only on the delegation of the staffing authorities at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner has provided an action plan that outlines how they will respond to the audit recommendations, and they will also provide semi-annual reports on how the plan has been implemented. The PSC has removed the conditions placed upon Health Canada and some of the conditions on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, following their past audits.

Following a 2009 audit, the PSC and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reached an agreement with respect to the auditing of additional appointments, the conduct of investigations, and corrective actions. A report on this agreement was also tabled in Parliament. The PSC found improvements in their staffing practices; however, the IRB has not accepted the conclusions of the majority of the investigations completed by the PSC. Any decision not to respond to the results of an investigation or not to undertake appropriate corrective measures undermines the integrity of the staffing system. Instead of removing all of their staffing authorities, we are now moving forward with a process whereby the PSC would carry out investigations and order corrective actions in the internal processes at the IRB.

As we move forward, the PSEA values will be as important as ever. With fewer opportunities, each appointment decision takes on more significance relative to the integrity of the system as a whole. The PSC's oversight activities provide important information about the integrity of the staffing system and assurance to Parliament that the core and guiding values are being met.

The PSC will also continue to work with members of this committee as well as other parliamentarians, deputy heads, bargaining agents and other stakeholders to ensure that the staffing system is responsive to the changing operational and fiscal context, and that staffing values continue to be respected.

My term as president has been extended until a replacement is found. PSC is committed to supporting a smooth transition to a new commission over the coming months. We'll continue to ensure that Canadians benefit from a professional public service in which merit and non-partisanship are independently protected.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madam Barrados.

How long have you been in this extended status? Do you have any information about the appointment of a new commissioner?

[Maria Barrados]

My term ended on May 20, but has been extended until December 31 or until a replacement is found.

The president of the public service is an appointment that has to be made with parliamentary support. We'll follow a process whereby a nomination is made by the Prime Minister. It will go to Parliament and will require a vote in both chambers before an appointment can be made.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understand you're juggling two jobs. You have some post-career plans, yet you're maintaining your old duties and doing a great deal of international travel. How are you managing?

[Maria Barrados]

I think I'm okay, except I have a bad cold. My husband has a different view.

For other members of the committee, one of the ideas I had as I was retiring was to spend some time working with the Mongolian government on their public service reform. This is a project supported by CIDA, our international development agency. I had thought that once I finished, I could let my successor do her thing and I would be out of the way. Unfortunately for me, I'm still doing my current job and there's a parliamentary agenda in Mongolia where they're trying to get their reforms through. So I've had to do a bit of travel while keeping in touch with the office back here. Mongolia is an interesting country, because it's situated between two large powers and it's working hard at being a parliamentary democracy.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Isn't that interesting! Congratulations on that work and for the good work you've been doing for us, Madam Barrados.

We have questions now.

First, for the official opposition, Alexandre Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Good afternoon, Ms. Barrados. Thank you for being here today. It's most appreciated.

I'll stop complaining immediately about my travels between Montreal and Ottawa.

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

We've been talking a lot about staffing today, but I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about some data in the report of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It talks about a phantom public service. I'd like to point out to what extent, despite the government's austerity measures or maybe even because of them, instances of contracting work out have not only increased in the past few years, but they have really exploded. Between 2005-2006 and today, the use of various consultants, temp services and management consultants has increased by 80%. It's in excess of $5.5 billion in taxpayers' money. We're talking about a 100% increase over the past few years in four main services or departments.

In your opinion, should we, and the government, look at the issue of outsourcing? Is this a way of providing Canadians with the best services at the best cost? I'd also like to know whether you are concerned about the increasing use of subcontracting, in the sense that it makes it possible to circumvent all the rules of the hiring process and the rules of the Public Service Commission of Canada. In fact, these private companies aren't subject to the same bilingualism, hiring or staffing requirements. We are troubled by the massive use of outsourcing, particularly at Public Works, when we are being told to be careful with taxpayers' money.

What do you think about this explosion in outsourcing? Are you not concerned about it as a way to get around the rules of the federal public service?

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you.

During the last Parliament, there was a motion by this committee asking us to do a study of temporary work in the public service, which we did. Elizabeth Murphy-Walsh was responsible for that study.

The result of the study showed some interesting things. First, it is not a staffing process, but rather a contracting process. The Public Service Commission is responsible for all staffing. This committee asked us to do a study, which we did. In my opinion, if it's something that works like a staffing process, we have the right to review it.

We found that there really is a lack of planning in this area and that there isn't enough control. We often have temporary workers who appear to be permanent employees. We have no information about whether these people meet the bilingualism and security requirements. This doesn't mean that people in the public service can't use this type of contract. It is appropriate if the job really is temporary.

At the PSC, we are very concerned if the process is being used not only for temporary work, but also for permanent work and is being used instead of a formal staffing process.

We haven't looked at the other sections that you mentioned. These are other contracts with professionals.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Be brief, please, Alexandre.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

We are concerned about the transmission of skills and the loss of expertise caused by outsourcing. The Duchesneau report, in Quebec, indicated that because the Quebec transport department was emptied of its substance, the remaining federal public servants were unable to evaluate contracts and bids presented to them by the private company and by subcontractors. Are you worried about this loss of internal expertise within the federal public service?

[Maria Barrados]

We are now in a situation where we are experiencing a significant change in the public service. Right now, I think we have managed it. We have hired employees to compensate for the departures. But for the future, we think that we must pay much more attention to planning to avoid problems related to a lack or a loss of skills. We also need to plan to ensure a good transition.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

For the Conservative side, we'll go to Mike Wallace.

You have five minutes, please, Mike.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam President, thank you for coming. This is my first opportunity to talk to you. I've been here for five years but I haven't dealt with this report before.

I was a city councillor for 13 years in the city of Burlington. People often ask me what the difference is. For me, the fundamental difference is that we knew in city council knew the people who did the work at the city, but here we obviously don't know the thousands of public servants who do great work for Canadians across the country, including in my riding, where I've had them out doing seminars and so forth. I appreciate the work our civil servants do. They are often not as appreciated as they should be, but I appreciate your work on this.

I just have some basic questions because I don't know the answers to them. In your statement you said that merit was not demonstrated in some staffing files. Is there a good definition of merit? Should everyone in the system know what it means to set meritorious requirements? Do you make that definition? Does each individual department make that decision, or how does that work?

[Maria Barrados]

The Public Service Employment Act has a definition of merit. As most of you probably know, this act was put in force in 2005. There is actually a statutory evaluation of that forthcoming. It will probably come to this committee.

That piece of legislation says merit has two elements in it: one, essential requirements; and two, asset requirements, meaning other things or other organizational needs that might be required in filling that position.

The merit test is that the essential requirements are met. It is the manager, the people doing the hiring, who sets out what the essential requirements of the job are. Those essential requirements are set out by a department, by the manager. We expect these to be set out upfront so that everybody knows what the essential requirements are—you can't go and change them along the way—and that an evaluation be done against these essential requirements.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

In some cases in your audits, you're finding that those criteria had not been set out. Is that what you are saying to us?

[Maria Barrados]

Yes. From looking overall at all of the audits this year, we're saying that in about 30% of the cases we really can't tell whether merit was met or not. It's small proportion, or only 5%. We can tell from the files that in terms of one of the essential requirements, merit wasn't met in these cases. But the preoccupation is with the 38% because we wonder, was it sloppiness? Often it can be. Was it haste? It can be. Or was it somebody who really didn't do a good job, and merit really wasn't met, and they didn't put anything in the file?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

My next question is based on your presentation today and your comment on the poor rationales for non-advertised appointment processes. Are there criteria setting out what needs to be advertised and what doesn't need to be advertised?

Then, can you give me an example of a non-advertised appointment?

[Maria Barrados]

The act provides for two ways of putting somebody in a job. It can either be by recruiting them from outside, or by promoting someone to a higher or different level in the public service. They allow these positions to be advertised, meaning that the job post is put on the jobs website or on an internal website. It explains what the job is, and lets everybody apply who thinks they can apply. They also allow non-advertised positions, meaning that the job is not posted.

The commission prefers advertised positions, particularly when we're recruiting from outside, because I think we should have as broad a reach of Canadians as possible. In my view, these are good jobs, and everyone should be given a fair chance to apply for them.

But there are cases where it's acceptable to have non-advertised positions. For example, if you have run a process looking for someone for a specialty area and you have not been successful in finding a candidate meeting your requirements but then happen to find someone who meets your requirements, I'm fine with that kind of person being appointed unadvertised. I still expect you to document why you've done that.

About 26% or 27% of recruitments are unadvertised, and I want a good, clear explanation as to why people think it's justified to go with an unadvertised position, because my preference and that of the commission is to have these positions advertised.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mike, I'm afraid your time is up.

We have Mathieu Ravignat for the NDP.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for being here, and thank you for your work. It's of immense value to us.

I have two principal concerns that I'll address today. One of them is the capacity to actually offer services to Canadians in a certain context—but I'll come back to that later.

Right now I'd like to address the part of the report that talks about patronage appointments. What worries me is the lack of clarity in the report on our being able to measure and handle this issue.

You mention in the report that 37% of people indicated they weren't aware of their rights and responsibilities with regard to political involvement. I'm familiar with part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, but wonder if you could speak to whether or not it's an issue with the act itself, or if it is a simple issue of awareness.

I might have some sub questions.

[Maria Barrados]

The issue that I raise in this report is the lack of awareness.

There are two parts to part 7. One is the process if you want to become a candidate and run for election; the other is for other political activity. In other documents, I have questioned whether the definition is perhaps too narrow, because political activity is activity in support of a political party. You could have activity that is in support of an issue that, de facto, becomes partisan, but not necessarily in support of a political party. Right now the act defines it in terms of support for a political party.