Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss chapter 3 of our May 2007 report on human resources management at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. As you mentioned, I'm joined today by Richard Flageole, assistant auditor general, and Marie Bergeron and Paul Morse, the principals responsible for this audit.
The purpose of our audit was to assess whether the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade adequately plans its human resources and manages its workforce with respect to the recruitment, staffing, and assignment of Canadian and locally engaged staff to carry out its mandate. I wish to emphasize that the work for this audit was completed in the fall of 2006, so we are not fully able to comment on how the situation has evolved since then.
Of all the issues raised in our report, we would like to draw your attention to the following three: human resources planning, recruitment and staffing, and the foreign service directives.
On human resources planning, we noted that the department does not have a complete picture of the people, competencies, and experience it will need in the coming years. In our opinion, it is essential that the department develop a strategic resources plan to prepare for short-, medium-, and long-term staff shortages. We noted that 58% of its employees in the management category and 26% of all employees will be eligible to retire by 2010. The department therefore risks not having the people in place necessary to carry out its mandate effectively.
As for recruitment and staffing, the department was unable to provide us with the exact number of vacant positions it was trying to fill. In our report, we indicated that we had doubts about the reliability and usefulness of the data we were provided. For example, although the human resources information system showed a 35% vacancy rate as of March 31, 2006, the department estimated it at 20%. What's more, neither the recruitment nor the promotion processes were sufficient to find enough people with the required skills and competencies to fill the vacancies in the time required. For example, when the department launched a promotion competition for executives in April 2005, only 39 of the 370 candidates who had pre-qualified based on their experience had been promoted by May 2006, more than a year later.
With regard to assignments for rotational employees, that is, employees who can be required to take positions at headquarters in Ottawa or at missions abroad, we noted that a high number of these employees were in acting positions and had been for some time. On 31 March 2006, for example, 116 employees from non-executive categories were acting in executive positions.
The Department's rotational employees are on the front lines of its program delivery abroad, and their personal situations, as well as those of their spouses and family members, are also affected by these circumstances. Many missions are in environments that compare poorly with Canada in their standard of living, security, safety and health care.
The purpose of the foreign service directives is to compensate employees for living conditions abroad and to provide incentives for hardship postings. They are negotiated by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the National Joint Council. We noted that the directives did not allow the Department to respond rapidly to changing circumstances and to the problems employees face as a result. The ability of the Department to assign staff to missions abroad was therefore hindered.
For example, it took more than one year for the Deputy Minister to get confirmation from the Treasury Board that he could use his delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to purchase adequate life insurance policies for its employees assigned to missions in countries at war, such as Afghanistan.
Spousal employment is another issue that has been a particular concern for a long time. In fact, the Royal Commission on Conditions of Foreign Service reported the problem as far back as 1981. The impact of these barriers can be significant for the family posted abroad as well as for program and service delivery at missions. With the increase in double-income families, the issue of spousal employment has become even more acute.
Other government departments and agencies who assign staff abroad are also affected by the limitations of the directives. Despite the concerns expressed over the years by our office and by various stakeholders, the issue, which involves the Treasury Board Secretariat and the active participation of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and other departments and agencies, had still not been resolved at the time of our audit.
Given the importance of the issues raised in our report, we encourage the committee to ask the government to take concrete action to clarify who is responsible for what, to establish clear timelines, and to report to Parliament regularly on its progress with regard to our observations and recommendations.
Mr. Chair, this concludes our opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.
Thank you.