Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I call the meeting to order. We have a quorum, and I notice that our guests are here.

Before we deal with the guests, I have received a notice of motion.

It reads as follows:

That the Committee, during the next two weeks, in accordance with article 108(3)(c) of the Standing Orders, examine in detail the budget cuts announced by Treasury Board on September 25, 2006.

We received this Notice of Motion today.

Ms. Thibault.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now that the motion has been tabled, I would like to ask Committee members for their unanimous consent to deal with it, with all due respect for Ms. Barrados. If I have unanimous consent, I would be prepared to postpone that discussion until 11:40 a.m. That is my first request of colleagues.

Do I have unanimous consent?

I will gladly read it to you.

I will even read it to you in English:

That the committee, during the next two weeks, in accordance with article 108(3)(c) of the procedure, examine in detail the budget cuts announced by Treasury Board on September 25th, 2006.

As you can see, colleagues, the goal it sets out is extremely important. I'm sure you have all reviewed the budget cuts that are being proposed in key sectors and that amount to some $1 billion over a two-year period. A committee such as ours has a duty to discuss these budget cuts and hear from witnesses on the subject.

I am moving that we discuss that possibility as early as today. I am therefore requesting your unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We need unanimous consent to move on this motion today. Otherwise it will go to Thursday because it was deposited just today.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'd like to discuss the matter with the Treasury Board president to see when he's available and whether we can work with--

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

All we're doing is agreeing that we will do this at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We will debate the motion at the next meeting.

The only problem here is that you needed unanimous consent.

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

I would like the record to show that only Conservative colleagues were opposed to dealing with this motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We'll now move to our guest, Madam Barrados, who is the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

You did not get a copy of the report prior to this meeting because it has just been deposited in the House of Commons. So you've now been given a copy of the report.

We've asked Madam Barrados to appear before the committee because that is the tradition. She deposits the report and comes before our committee to give us an overview and answer our questions.

Madam Barrados.

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

Thank you very much, and good morning.

I have with me, from the Public Service Commission of Canada, Linda Gobeil, senior vice-president, policy; Mary Clennett, vice-president, audit; and Donald Lemaire, vice-president, staffing and assessment services.

I am here today to discuss the Public Service Commission's 2005-2006 Annual Report, and three audits, tabled today in Parliament.

The Public Service Commission, or PSC, is an independent agency, reporting to Parliament, which is mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and the political neutrality of the public service.

This is the first Annual Report published under the new Public Service Employment Act. Our report presents the results of the PSC's oversight of staffing activities within federal departments and agencies covered by the Public Service Employment Act.

Interest in public service jobs remains high. Over three-quarters of a million applications were received last year. We have seen an increase in new hires and staffing in the public service. Overall, the commission continues to have confidence in the integrity of staffing in the public service and its foundation of merit. That is not to say that the public service staffing system is perfect. We have some areas of concern.

This past year, we saw the coming into force of the new Public Service Employment Act, or PSEA, on December 31, 2005. Our oversight activities confirmed that the essential elements were in place to delegate significant staffing authorities to deputy heads. However, three particular challenges will need to be addressed: improve HR planning; develop the community of HR professionals; and ensure reliable and timely information to support management decisions and accountability.

With the new PSEA, there is a renewed emphasis on the importance of a non-partisan public service. Overall, the commission continues to find little direct political influence in the staffing system, although there is some cause for concern. We are concerned that the unmonitored movement of public servants to and from ministers' offices will have an impact on perceptions of non-partisanship.

In our report we describe the results of two investigations that found improper use of the staffing system by public servants working in ministers' offices, involving appointments to phantom positions. The appointments were revoked. We would like the movement of public servants working in ministers' offices to be monitored and controlled through legislation or policy.

There are other areas where we are taking action or increasing monitoring to address our concerns. To broaden access to public service jobs, effective April 1, 2006, the mandatory use of the national area of selection was extended to all officer-level job postings open to the public in the national capital region. To support managers in implementing a national area of selection, we have provided them with technological tools to reduce the number of applications that need to be manually screened. We are on track to broaden access to all other officer-level jobs open to the public across Canada by April 2007. In December 2007, following a positive impact assessment, the national area of selection will be established for all other occupational groups and levels.

We are modernizing our second language tests to respond to concerns expressed by candidates and other stakeholders. This includes a second language oral interaction test. We expect to have the new test in place by 2007-08.

We continue to be concerned about those getting into the public service through casual employment. A total of 17% of new public service employees appointed to term and indeterminate positions in 2005-06 had a recent history of casual employment.

Overall, the composition of the public service reflects the workforce availability for three of the four employment equity groups: women, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples. There has been an increase in the numbers of visible minorities in the public service, but a gap persists with a representation as of March 31, 2005 of only 8.1%, despite their workforce availability of 10.4%.

Now, let's turn to the audits. Audits are tools that will help us maintain an accountable, representative, and non-partisan public service. This year, three audits have been tabled with our Annual Report.

In 2004, we conducted an audit of the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC). We found that there were serious deficiencies in staffing practices and policies. Our follow-up audit found that the Complaints Commission has made improvements in its staffing systems and practices over the last two years. We concluded that the organization has adequately responded to recommendations made in our 2004 Audit Report. The PSC has removed the remedial measures it imposed in 2004 and has put in place a standard delegation agreement.

In our audit of readiness for the new Public Service Employment Act, we found that organizations have met the essential elements for the coming into force of the new PSEA. However, there are significant challenges for a successful implementation. They include ongoing training and communication as well as the putting in place of monitoring systems. The PSC will work with others to establish timelines for moving forward.

In our audit of executive positions held on a temporary basis, we found that holding a higher-level executive position, even on a temporary basis, increased the chance of promotion. Of individuals holding these positions, 38% received subsequent promotions.

We also found that few were made through a competitive process, and 91% of the files reviewed did not contain the required rationale or justification for the appointment. Our audit also found poor practices in documenting these transactions. Deputy heads audited have agreed to take corrective measures to ensure compliance to the PSEA. We will also increase our monitoring for compliance.

Our mandate uniquely combines staffing-related authorities with oversight functions that we exercise on Parliament's behalf. The ultimate purpose of the PSC's independent oversight is fostering a competent, professional, and representative public service that is appointed on merit and free from political and bureaucratic favouritism. The commission again points to changes that we feel would strengthen our independence--the ability to table special reports to the Speaker and to have a greater review of our budgets by Parliament.

In closing, I will say that the 2005-06 fiscal year was an eventful period for Canada's public service. The implementation of the new PSEA demands a cultural change in the way departments and agencies approach staffing, a transformation that will not happen overnight. It will take united leadership and support of deputy heads, departments, agencies, managers, and public service employees.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your opening remarks. There is a lot of reading to do. I just got the report right now. We understand it's common practice. I wasn't completely aware of that, so my questions will be a bit based on the opening remarks you presented.

When we talk about the Public Service Employment Act and the way it has been implemented, a great deal has been downloaded now to the departments and agencies for hiring practices. According to your remarks, there seem to be some challenges, as you diplomatically put it. I haven't read the report, but I anticipate there are some problems with respect to that for HR planning, and you indicated a need to develop a community of HR professionals and so forth.

Is there also an issue with respect to funding? Is that an issue in terms of the challenges as well? More importantly, in relation to hiring practices, you indicated four targeted areas in your opening remarks, one of them being the underrepresentation of visible minorities. Is that an issue the departmental-level agencies are aware of? Specifically, do they have an action plan to address that issue?

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you for your question.

The issue of funding is not an issue we looked at directly, but in fact we raise it indirectly. The comment about not having sufficient systems is actually a funding-related issue. In order to modernize the systems that support HR, there will be a requirement for new funding. That will take Treasury Board decisions.

What we have done at the Public Service Commission in response to the issue of the delegation--what we have seen is that functions and activities that were done centrally are now going to departments--is to maintain our service function, headed by Mr. Lemaire. Departments can still come to us, but it is a discretionary service instead of a required service. We are still there to support them. In terms of moving forward, I view that one of the objectives for the commission has to be to support the system as much as possible.

It is a big change that is being requested of departments while a lot of other things are changing. It is moving from a transactional approach to staffing to one that is much more strategic and involves planning and looking ahead.

On your issue of underrepresentation, this is an issue that remains a concern for me. I feel we all want a public service that is representative of the Canadian population, and when you look at the labour force availability and the actual representation in the public service, we have this gap.

In the past, the old act required a plan. Under the new act, this is going to be an important element that should be in the HR plan for each department.

I would suggest that when the committee is having discussions with departmental heads about their plans, you might in fact ask how they are doing on this element of HR planning.

At the commission, we've set up--and we talked about that--a special pool to recruit pre-qualified people who are ready for executive positions. We looked inside and outside of the government, and we identified 41 people from visible minority groups as executive-ready. We're doing very well in placing those people into executive positions.

I think that's another part that's important. You have to have the representation in the leadership.

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

My understanding is that at the entry level the representation of visible minorities is reasonably good compared to senior positions.

You indicate that certain departments have been challenged to put forth a plan to indicate a strategy for increasing representation. Is there any timeline associated with that? Has there been any response after your audits where they've said that they recognize this as an issue--which is not a surprise because it's an issue that has existed for many, many years--and that it would be in the foreseeable future, in three to five years? Do they have certain timelines associated with reaching these targets?

[Maria Barrados]

On the entry level, we have done better. But we still have this phenomenon that we talk about in the report as “drop-off”. In terms of applications to the public service--and I mentioned there are high numbers of applications, there's a lot of interest--we're seeing a higher proportion than you would expect from visible minorities. When it comes to actually seeing what appointments take place, we have a lower proportion than expected.

I'm preoccupied with this drop-off. A lot of this is actually done through automated systems. We are undertaking a really detailed examination of that, and we should be able to report next year as to why that's happening.

If there are barriers that are part of our system, we have to change it.

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

The institutional barriers.

[Maria Barrados]

That's right, or it's how we pose the questions or do the screening. If those things are occurring, we have to remove them.

With respect to targets, the government had a target of bringing in one in five visible minorities. This was a catch-up target. We've seen an increase, but there has not been this “one in five”, both in entry into the public service and entry into the executive group.

In terms of plans and targets, the regime has changed. In the old regime, I could require deputy ministers to give me a plan, and I challenged all executive appointments and I requested plans. Under the new legislation, this has to be part of the HR plan that is put in place by the department.

We're in transition. When I start seeing those plans, I will be asking about it.

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

Excellent.

I have a specific case to talk about with respect to second language training. You alluded to it as well, and it's on page 4 of your opening remarks.

I have a specific case. Someone came to my office and gave an example of an individual he knew of who had limited French—very intermediary French, speaking, writing, and oral abilities—and wanted an executive position. He realized that in order to do this he needed to get second language training, but there was a two-year backlog. I found this difficult to believe, but he said that was the case. Then he had his assessment done from the House of Commons, but the oral component was not accepted by the Public Service Commission.

First, for clarification, is there a two-year backlog? Second, is it also true that the assessment conducted by the House of Commons for oral French-speaking skills, or second language skills, is not accepted by the Public Service Commission?

[Maria Barrados]

In terms of the backlog in training, I'm no longer responsible for training. The Public Service Commission was at one time; it is now the Canada School of Public Service. I understand there is quite a backlog. I'm not sure exactly—

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

Two years is what I've been told. I'm not sure if there's truth to this, but that's a substantially lengthy time.

[Maria Barrados]

It's pretty close.

But there are alternatives. You can get training through the Canada School, but your department can also send people out to private schools.

If I can't get people in my own organization through the Canada School, I send them to private schools or have in-house tutors. So it's not the only way to get the training.

On the issue of other tests, I think that is correct. We've been rather fussy about that, and I have been subject to some criticism, but I'll tell you why. One of the requirements defined in the job is the level of bilingualism, so it is set as one of the skills you need to have for the job. Not all jobs require it, and 60% are English only. But if it is required as a skill, we want to make sure we have one norm and one standard, so that everybody is assessed fairly and equally. So we insist on our tests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Madame Thibault.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Barrados, I want to thank you and your colleagues for being with us once again, because for some time now, I have had the pleasure of sitting on this committee.

I will obviously read your report with great interest, because the Commission is a central agency that plays a critical role. It is very important that we be aware of what you have to say and any comments you may wish to make with respect to follow-up action. The last time we met with you, all Committee members were concerned, rightly so, about the non-performance of a specific agency. We were pleased to note that you had taken corrective measures, including withdrawing a delegation. After all, when an organization is given a delegation, it is expected to be accountable.

In that connection, I have a question about senior executive positions. Although this is understandable to a certain point, why is it that some acting appointments turn into indeterminate appointments? The rules surrounding competitions apply to everyone. It is important that from the top down -- I don't really like that expression, but the fact remains that there is a hierarchy -- employees get the message that the rules have to be followed and that no group is exempt. They must know that it's not enough to be in the right place at the right time to be appointed without competition.

One of the requirements that has bothered me for a long time has to do with bilingualism. Unilingual, or quasi-unilingual individuals -- functional illiterates from a linguistic standpoint, I suppose you could say -- are regularly appointed to positions to the detriment of the management team and the organization. While I don't doubt the skills they may have in their particular field, I would like to know whether senior executives are still being appointed to acting positions, in spite of the fact that they do not meet the language requirements? That is my first question.

I'm going to ask all my questions at once, and when I'm done you will have an opportunity to answer all of them at the same time.

My second question is this: I am sure you're aware of the difficulties that some organizations are experiencing at the present time, particularly Public Works and Government Services Canada, as regards an essential and fundamental function -- namely, pay processing. I recently met with union representatives, and people are very concerned. Some people are not receiving their basic pay, their acting pay, or their overtime for very extensive periods of time. We're not talking about two or three weeks here.

Although this is not one of your direct responsibilities, do you know whether these organizations are having problems with recruitment, training or retention of staff? Did they not plan for the time when employees would be retiring at the age of 55? Given that the public service is a central organization, are you responsible for staffing, or is that function entirely delegated to the Commission?

You were here when I tabled a Notice of Motion. The Government has just announced two years of cuts amounting to more than $1 billion. Some of them are aimed at greater efficiency; another -- which some of us may even find rather amusing -- has to do with abolishing non-essential training. When I read that, I found myself thinking that it was rather strange that people would be given non-essential training and that it would then be decided to cancel the program. I can't believe that people have been given training that wasn't essential.

Is the Public Service Commission affected by these efficiency measures or is the intention to go through a budget exercise in order to achieve that? That's my third question.

Ms. Barrados, I just want to thank you in advance for your answers.

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you very much for your comments, Ms. Thibault.

I am going to ask Linda to help me with the technical questions regarding EX positions that require bilingualism.

It is possible that people are being appointed to acting positions who do not meet all the requirements of the position, including those relating to bilingualism. These appointments are for periods of four months or less and are carried out in order to ensure that operational requirements can be met. There are also other circumstances under which this is allowed; for example, for someone in language training. In such cases, another type of compensation is requested.

We expect people to meet the requirements of their position. If the position requires of the incumbent that he be bilingual, he must be bilingual. Otherwise, there must be a compensation.

The report refers to a mechanism for monitoring standards that enables us to determine when people do not meet bilingualism requirements. That mechanism also ensures that the exemptions system is properly used and that there is follow-up.

This is in response to a question Mr. Sauvageau has often asked us. Last year, we identified 600 cases of incumbents that did not meet the requirements of their position. At the present time, there are more than 800. These cases do not all involve all EX positions. I am not aware of the numbers for the EX category, but specific requirements and processes have been established.

It is possible to obtain an exemption for an upcoming position in order to ensure that operational requirements can be met. For example, some individuals may be exempted for two years, but after a specific period of time, a new position must be found for them. It is our intention to monitor the situation very closely. We have requested plans. We have a case tracking system that will allow us to resolve this issue.

Do you have anything to add, Linda?

[Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Just on the last point made by the President, we track positions where standards are not being met. After an incumbent has occupied a bilingual position for two years, an exemption must be requested.

Some cases have been resolved. Of the 600 cases reported last year, 200 or 300 have now been resolved. However, this year's survey shows that others have been added.

We have asked the departments to provide plans. Every department submitted an action plan over the course of the summer. The President personally wrote to every single deputy minister asking why these cases continue to arise.