Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Ruth Dantzer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada School of Public Service]

Thank you for inviting me.

I have actually distributed a four-page deck. This is somewhat of a change of pace in terms of the discussion that has been going on this morning, but from my perspective, I've been asked to come here to talk about the school's role in implementing the Accountability Act, and where public servants fit into that.

So with your indulgence, Chair, I would like to basically walk through a very quick four-page deck, which will take about two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Two minutes is perfect.

[Ruth Dantzer]

That's about half a minute per page, and I'll try to make sure I do that.

The second page of the document that I distributed outlines my objective today. I want to talk about the school's role in supporting the Federal Accountability Act.

We're absolutely putting the accent on a culture change for the public service, and emphasis, really, on individual as well as organizational learning. I think this is key in terms of the intent that is enunciated throughout the bill.

Page 2—and I will be very brief—goes into the context, as the school's role in helping implement the Accountability Act has to be seen in a larger context. That context is one in which we are working with both organizational leadership, individual learning, and public sector innovation.

The school's mandate is absolutely to implement a more coordinated approach to learning across the public service. This doesn't just include the one-one universe, but goes beyond—and you'll hear about that. This chart really tries to demonstrate how we see the three aspects of learning, the individual, organizational, and public sector management, coming together to ensure that we have a strong, innovative public service to serve Parliament.

Page 4 gets to the priorities of the school. I think it is here where you will see the most direct link with respect to the Accountability Act.

There are four priorities. The first is in the box entitled “Public Service Foundations”.

You'll see that the first blue box is an introduction to the public service. A key priority for the Canada School over the next while is the orientation program that we have started for all public servants. This is important because it absolutely focuses on values and ethics. For the first time ever, every public servant, within six months of their appointment, is going to have an orientation about our rules, our values, and who we work for. This is actually being held here in Ottawa, and both Houses of Parliament are intimately involved.

The second box talks about authority delegation training. This is something where all public servants, as of January 1—although the actual courses don't start until this month—with delegated legal authority to hire and authority to sign cheques and to do procurement will have to show they have gone through a course and written an exam showing they have the requisite knowledge to do those appropriately. This is the first time ever; the school in the past has basically had courses, but we've never been to level two evaluation, which means knowledge transfer. Delegations will be withheld from people who don't get through the exam or knowledge transfer.

The third box deals with training for functional groups. The main priority is to professionalize these groups. You have undoubtedly heard about our efforts as regards financial issues and procurement.

For the first time ever, for those functional communities, there are actual training programs for them to follow.

The fourth box deals with leadership development. It is clear that we want to strengthen values and ethics and leadership development within the public service.

For us, the leadership piece is very important. It's an issue in that if we can capture the leaders and ensure that they are modelling appropriate behaviour, we're actually convinced that the whole public service will follow suit.

With my last 30 seconds, I'll turn to the fourth page. It just highlights the next steps. The focus is on implementation in terms of getting this knowledge transferred.

The Accountability Act is a major piece of legislation. It requires, to some extent, culture change in the public service, and we think the courses, in terms of orientation and authority delegation, are going to situate public servants well in making sure they live up to the spirit of the act.

We are looking at evaluation, so there will be evaluation knowledge transfer, ensuring that people have the delegated authority. And obviously there will be lots of work with departments.

Finally, I want to clarify that I sent our brochure to your offices. It contains details on all of the courses that I have just talked about.

I am now ready to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Merci. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

I'm excited that you are here representing the School of Public Service and that your slides talk about a strong and innovative public service.

If I can speak for our side, we have always had faith in the honesty, integrity, hard work, and brilliance of the public service. In fact, it's important to underline that despite what may be said during the daily non-answer period in the House of Commons, there is in the Gomery report a strong vindication of the public service. To that end, having faith in the public service, and seeing your enthusiasm for continuing that tradition, and getting into the culture of accountability and so on.... There are two areas I see in the Accountability Act that take away, given the strong pedigree of the public service, what might be expected.

I'll say this. The parliamentary budget officer is given separate authority to hire people on contract. The Director of Public Prosecutions is another example of something that is working in the Attorney General's office being taken out of the orbit of the Attorney General's office--not completely, but somewhat.

These are two instances showcasing an independence from or a truncation of the public service. And it might, in fact, be...not demoralizing, but it's not as great an incentive for the public service to have, for instance, a budget officer who has separate authority to hire on contract and not pick from the higher-end public service the people who deserve and have been trained for and are ready for the job.

We're just getting into the Accountability Act, but those are two areas I see where there's a bit of a contradiction. The law is intended to bolster the public service and so on, but here are two instances where it's sort of cutting away from it.

I would look forward to your comments on that.

[Ruth Dantzer]

I can't comment in terms of those two particular instances. I am not the technical expert on the act. I can say that the school has been active in terms of meeting with departments and deputy heads. Deputy ministers are now responsible for all the learning in their departments. We have been making a big effort to get out to talk to public servants and professional groups, and nowhere have we felt or heard of that demoralizing effect. In fact, most public servants are so excited about the learning agenda and that for the first time there is a learning policy for the public service that they are very much more focused and happy to showcase both their professionalism and their technical knowledge.

I can't comment, but can only say that public servants haven't mentioned it to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen, you have four minutes.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Dantzer, and congratulations on your new role and what you're already laying out for a new approach.

On page 4 of your slides, under “Leadership Development”, we have at the bottom of the first box, “Values and Ethics”. It may just be because this is a simple diagram, but I would think that it would be valuable to have values and ethics in the far left-hand box as well, under “Public Service Foundations”. It may be that it's contemplated in there, but I think there should be a major promotion of ethics and values right up front.

I would suggest that there's really one cardinal rule to direct public servants and politicians in how they relate to each other and, therefore, how the public administration can work with integrity and within ethics and values, and that is to understand the dividing line between them.

Our system is a political system. We have partisanship in elections, in platforms, in legislation, and in appropriation of money, and all of that goes on in Parliament. But as soon as you get to that point where the policy or legislation or whatever has been decided and the money appropriated, you cross a line and you go from what is inherently partisan to a duty of fairness. If there's one thing that I think every public servant should have burned into his or her mind, it's the concept of the duty of fairness.

That means, of course, that objective criteria, transparency, competitive processes, and results evaluation, all of those issues of the public administration, really should be divided from the political side. It's when people from the political side, frankly, whether they're ministers or ministerial assistants, cross that line that we get into trouble with the public administration and the public's faith in it. I think if we all keep clearly in our minds that dividing line, realizing the requisites and different roles of each, we'll all achieve a lot more together as we go through this act and look for guidance and reinforcement for that principle.

[Ruth Dantzer]

I would just offer to your first point that you're absolutely right, values and ethics, while they don't show up per se, absolutely are through the whole spectrum of the learning we do. It starts with orientation, but it is woven into all the courses you will see on your charts in terms of the purple, which is the authority delegation. That is a key component that's woven in. It's absolutely true that all our leadership courses talk about that divide.

I would say it is a shared responsibility. Public servants have to understand that demarcation line. For the first time in a long time, we have the opportunity to work with new ministerial staff, and we spent two days going through their understanding of what that demarcation line is. It is difficult, and a shared understanding is going to ensure that it actually gets implemented in a way that I think all of you would be proud of. So the school is very active along that line.

Thank you for your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, go ahead, please.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Good morning, and welcome.

On page 5 of the French version of the presentation that you handed out, you say that the School is working with departments to implement the necessary training. You add that starting this week, the school will provide orientation for 150 public servants each week.

Is this related to Bill C-2?

[Ruth Dantzer]

I did not understand your last question.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is this training regarding Bill C-2? Have you started providing some training for public servants on Bill C-2?

[Ruth Dantzer]

No. First of all, the orientation program begins this week. It will be held on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, two days a week, I believe, and it will be given to 150 individuals.

As for the act itself, clearly it is quite difficult to provide training on a bill that has not yet been passed.

With respect to values and ethics, which, in my view, are one of the underlying foundations of the legislation, obviously, the courses are already underway.

Does that respond to your question, in a way?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes. I would like to ask you whether you offered training when Bill C-11 was passed in the last session?

[Ruth Dantzer]

We did, it rather, for the Public Service Modernization Act,

the PSMA, the Public Service Modernization Act.

I do not know whether it was for Bill C-11 or for a part that was added subsequently.

But it's absolutely clear. We spent the last year talking about various parts of the PSMA, and in fact got an audit report saying that we were well on our way. Whistle-blowing is something that comes up in the discussions we have with leaders, in terms of public servant leaders, all the time. We have discussions in terms of making sure they understand.

For the School of Public Service and its professionals, it is important to give managers a framework within which they can discuss problems. This framework exists at all levels, but particularly at the management level.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you. I do not want to be impolite, but my time is very limited. With the chair's permission, I would like to ask you some questions that go beyond the scope of Bill C-2.

When we talk about ethics and accountability, we are talking about compliance with all federal laws. I am going to be talking about the Official Languages Act.

Do you feel in part responsible for the general lack of compliance with the Official Languages Act? Are ethics somewhat elastic?

[Ruth Dantzer]

There is no doubt that the Canada School of Public Service has the important responsibility to create an environment that is respectful of the official languages. Increasingly, the fact that this environment is limited to learning the official languages changes the dynamic somewhat, but I have not noticed that we were placing less importance on respect for the official languages.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

A complaint regarding a lack of compliance with the Official Languages Act was filed against Treasury Board and National Defence. The Commissioner of Official Languages ruled that the complaint was in order and it is now being investigated. The investigation will be completed very soon.

What do you think about imperative staffing? If an individual promises to become bilingual, he or she may be put into a bilingual position. I was my party's critic on official languages. Could non-imperative staffing apply to other cases? In order to occupy a bilingual position, it is not necessary...

I'm talking about ethics and values.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're talking about the Official Languages Act now. I guess my question to you is to be relevant--

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

When we talk about accountability and enforcing the law, I think this applies to all laws, including the Official Languages Act. We have before us a representative of the public service. I am asking her a question about values, ethics and responsibility. I think my comment is in order. If you disagree, I will stop here, with all due respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm allowing a certain amount of latitude, but just keep in mind what we're dealing with here, and that's Bill C-2. I agree that there's a certain amount of overlap, but try to keep on topic, sir.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

On that very point, Bill C-2 does not make a single reference to the Official Languages Act nor to increased authority which could have been conferred upon the Commissioner of Official Languages. I am going to continue with my remarks concerning non-imperative staffing.

Here is my theory: if it is not necessary to be bilingual to hold a bilingual position—and I just simplified the concept of non-imperative staffing—why is this logic not extended to include the entire public service? For argument's sake, you would not have to be a lawyer to hold a position as a legal counsel; it would be enough to pledge you intended to become one. You would not have to be an economist to work at the Department of Finance; all you would have to do would be to promise you were going to become one.

Why is non-imperative staffing not extended across the board? Or why is this heresy for francophone communities not simply dispensed with?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Sauvageau is making some very interesting points that I'm sure the members of the official languages committee would find fascinating, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. I would ask that we keep our questions on topic, so that we can get the job done, if it indeed is his intention to get this job done.