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.