Government Operations Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

What does “rollout” mean? Does rollout mean the pilot testing or the implementation?

[Donald Lemaire]

The pilot testing should be done in the fall of 2007.

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

And full implementation by the end of 2008? Is that reasonable?

[Donald Lemaire]

Yes. We hope it will be fully implemented, but we never know what difficulties or operational—

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

Okay, fair enough.

Speaking not on behalf of the government but as a member of Parliament in the Ottawa area, I can tell you this is a big problem. I hear frustration from public servants all the time about this. At some point, given the demographic changes that are occurring in our workforce and the recruitment needs that our public service is going to face, we are going to have to find a way to make this system less cumbersome if we're going to recruit a skilled workforce into the middle and upper levels of the public service that we're going to need.

Some people might consider that to be politically incorrect. It's a numerical reality. I hear it from all sorts of people, from all parts of the national capital region. I was even approached by a member of one of the public sector unions who is a francophone, who was talking about his frustration of seeing this system and its encumbrances imposed upon some of his co-workers. There has to be a way to improve the way this testing works so that we can get people into the right positions, at the same time as guaranteeing that the public will always have service in the official language of its choice--either official language. I think we can do better.

The private sector does this all the time. Any national corporation with customers in and outside of Quebec has to manage the same problems. They have to provide services to a unilingual francophone market and a unilingual anglophone market at the same. So there has to be a way we can do this efficiently.

I very much encourage you to pursue any innovative techniques to move forward, because I am convinced we can do a lot better than we're doing. What are your comments on that?

[Maria Barrados]

I'd like to make just a couple of comments.

We have a piece of legislation, the official languages legislation, and there are two obligations. One is the obligation to provide service in both official languages, but the second obligation is to provide supervision in both official languages. That is not the kind of obligation that the private sector takes upon itself, and that is because a commitment was made to attempt to get a fully bilingual public service.

Those who take that charge on look at the public service and say,well, you know, you're training a lot of people; they get trained, they pass their test, sometimes with a lot of difficulty, and then they don't use the other language. So they lose the skills because we don't have that public service as fully bilingual as we want.

That's the vision. For us at the Public Service Commission, this is the vision that is in the Official Languages Act and it's in the preamble of the PSEA, so that's the vision that we are working to. So it is different from what the private sector has to face.

I know there is a lot of criticism of the test, and I have to accept some of those criticisms. We're not perfect. The test is out of date. We have to improve the test. We're doing that even without new money. I'm going to do it. It means other things will suffer, but I'm going to do it. I'm making this a priority; we're going to do this test.

But frankly, the test is not always the problem. There are a number of people who, as I say, have high anxiety for test situations. Some of them just freeze, and some people have some horrible times with a second language. But a lot of them just don't have the skill. I hear a lot of complaints about the C-B-C level, that for those very same people who have the C, I get told I can't send them somewhere to make a presentation or do something with that C level.

So it's a little more complicated than saying it's just the test, but I am committed to changing and doing the best we can by the test.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

I would like, first of all, to know if the recruitment of casual workers falls under the Commission's mandate.

[Maria Barrados]

No, not exactly. Casual workers are not subject to the requirements of the act. These workers are not a concern, as long as they are called upon to carry out truly casual work. In certain cases, we talk about short-term work or short-term needs.

In the case of a large and complex system such as ours, this type of requirement will arise. However, the problem for me is the possibility that this serve as a door towards a permanent position within the public service. That has happened in the past, and it is a concern of mine.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I will move on to the next question, but if it is out of order, I will go to another one.

Casual workers employed by federal departments have told me that they have little chance of one day becoming regular employees.

Is it your impression that government departments and agencies resort to increasing the pool of casual workers so as to avoid having to hire regular employees?

[Maria Barrados]

Yes, this is a practice that I have observed and criticized in the annual report. When you resort to this type of hiring, you give an advantage to some without however offering to all Canadians interested in working in the public service a fair and transparent system.

At the PSC, we have seen that there is a very high level of interest in working in the public service. We receive a great number of job applications. For us, the matter is not that of a shortage. It is rather what must be done to respond to the high demand on the part of people wishing to work for the public service and the way to manage this demand.

Linda, would you like to add something?

[Linda Gobeil]

With regard to casual workers, the possibility you mention exists. If these people are used in the proper way, in other words for periods of up to 90 days within the year, then all the better. It is a way of responding to immediate needs. If, however, people take advantage of this opportunity to circumvent all the requirements pertaining to entry into the public service, including the merit principle, then there is a problem, one that we have already brought up.

Furthermore, you were inferring that certain departments resort to this process so as to not fill positions permanently. This would require taking a look at what is really going on. The act is quite clear with regard to duration. Casual workers cannot be employed for more than 90 days per year. I am perhaps not aware of the cases you are alluding to. However, when casual work is used appropriately and managed according to the law, then it can be very profitable for everyone.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I do not have sufficient proof to back up what I am saying, but I can tell you that I have been told of such goings on. People have told me that they had worked for three months and that, a few days before the end of the prescribed period, they were laid off, to then be hired back a week later. They have maintained that they are not alone in this situation, and that it is even common practice.

[Maria Barrados]

Linda and myself talked about casual jobs, but there are other categories as well. It is somewhat complicated. Perhaps Mr. Lemaire could give you an overview of the different situations that can exist.

[Donald Lemaire]

Those positions that are qualified as determinate positions, and that can be viewed as casual, are given the status of indeterminate positions after three years. Some casual positions are limited to a duration of exactly 90 days. Once this period is up, they are not renewable. There must be a break in service.

Does your question relate to positions of a maximum duration of 90 days or to term positions?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I have not really studied the matter in depth. I simply outlined the problem for you. Whatever the case, I now know that after three years, there is a provision that can apply.

[Donald Lemaire]

I would like to underscore that this is automatic in the case of term positions. However, in the case of casual positions, you are talking of very short term jobs, the duration of which is very precisely limited. They cannot be renewed with impunity.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Fine. I would like to ask another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Bouchard, your time is up.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to each of the witnesses for appearing today.

In the report tabled, the 2005-06 report, in terms of the movement between the public service and ministers' offices, you indicate that there are approximately 100 public service employees who went to work in a minister's office without a break in service and then subsequently returned. And then you went on to highlight the fact that there were two situations where the potential for abuse was noted.

I'm just wondering, if you push this back now beyond the 10 years that your report indicates, do you expect the numbers per year to be roughly average, roughly 10 per year, or do you expect a bulge in that?

And then secondly, do you feel that you have the resources to complete your report, as you indicated, hopefully by January? I assume that each member of this committee would receive a report of your findings subsequent to that investigation.

[Maria Barrados]

The 10 years we were talking about was for the period 1993-94 to 2003-04, so we're pushing it back and we're pushing it forward. I expect it to be a bigger number, but I'm not sure how big.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Will it be bigger proportionately, though? This is roughly 10 per year. You don't expect a bulge because of a change of government.

[Maria Barrados]

We could have a bit of a bulge, because we'll be taking in two other transitions, and of course you have more of this in a transition period. So I don't know. If I guess, there will be 150, maybe, but not more than that. And then, of course, a lot of these will be fine. So we're going to have to sort out what doesn't look quite right.

Do I have the resources? I don't want to get into a whine. I am short of capacity on audit and investigation. But for me, what that means is that I reallocate and I change the priorities. Because of the interest, this has become a priority, and it means that some other things will be pushed back, so that's what I'll do.

The way I have described the work is that in January we will have what I call a description of the situation: how many of them there are, what kinds of things I have to do, where the limits are of what we can do as well. Because we can't go into crowns, and we obviously don't go into ministers' offices, but we can see the movement back and forth.

Yes, I'd be happy to provide a copy of that report to this committee.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I'd like to follow up. If I understand the system, let's say that out of the whole audit you end up with four suspicions. Would you have the authority to question ministers in terms of doing further investigations--or former ministers?

[Maria Barrados]

I have broad investigative powers, but they are with respect to people who are employed in the public service. Ministers are not employed in the public service. So I could try to talk to them. They might want to talk to me and they might not, but I do not have those investigative powers for ministers.