Evidence of meeting #42 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was numbers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
That's interesting.
Can I ask about women? Why is there such a difference between public sector participation of women and private sector participation? A majority of people in the public service are female. Is that the result of anything in particular? Are there hiring practices or recruitment practices that are aimed at women?
4:30 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
There were. There still is a preoccupation for the executive group, because overall in the public service we now have about 52% women, but in the executive groups we're not at 50%; we are in the low 30s. If you look at representation of women in the executive leadership of the public service, it's not there.
4:30 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
We've come a long way, but we haven't come far enough. There has been an increase. When I started my job, there was a time when there weren't very many senior women at all. We now have many more, but we still don't have the numbers.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's enough for right now; we just drove over the time. Thank you.
Mr. Nadeau, it is your turn to speak next.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Ms. Barrados, Ms. Gobeil, Mr. Coffin.
First, an initial question for clarification purposes. You are the federal Public Service Commission. Who was under your jurisdiction? Are they just people working in the departments and so on? Are they everyone who receives a pay cheque from the federal government? I would simply like to know who are the people for whom you are responsible.
4:35 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
That's a very good question. That's why I added Schedule 1 of the Financial Administration Act for calculation purposes. We have the definition of who is part of the public service. We have a core public service. That core consists of the departments, agencies and a few other services. We also have a greater public service, which includes the Canadian Forces, the Crown corporations and the Canada Revenue Agency. We can see the difference in numbers between these two employee groups. The PSC, the Public Service Commission, is responsible for this core public service, except for the parts of the act concerning political activities, where we have a broader responsibility.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Tthe table refers to the “Core Public Administration”. You are responsible for those people. That represents 178,000 persons. So you're not necessarily responsible for the 380,700 who form the total strength of the federal government. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
So there are other organizations that somehow resemble yours and are responsible for the people who do not come under you.
4:35 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
No. The PSC has total responsibility for this core administration, but there isn't any equivalent organization for other federal workers.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
So someone who works at Canada Post doesn't necessarily have to obey the rules that apply to someone who works in some department. Am I right?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
All right.
So there are two classes of employees in that regard, if you will.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
All right.
Second, when the statistics show that there is a risk that, at some point, we might find ourselves in a so-called quiet crisis—I don't really remember the terms used—thus an employee shortage, does that concern the core administration, or all the people who receive a pay cheque from the federal government?
4:35 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
All my comments are based on the PSC's experience. That's the experience of the core administration. However, I have no indication that there is a major difference for the others, except that we have specific requirements in the Canadian Forces, for example. That's a unique area, and we have specific requirements for their employees.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
It's like a state within a state: they have their ways of doing things and that has nothing to do with the rest. All right.
That said, with regard to functional bilingualism—at the risk of starting a debate, but one that will be short because I only have five minutes, part of which has already elapsed—wouldn't it be “easier” to hire candidates who are already bilingual to fill positions requiring bilingualism? Perhaps I'm asking you for a political opinion.
Let's say that a bilingual position is advertised. People apply. Wouldn't it be more efficient for those candidates, if selected, to be already functionally bilingual? That means that they can speak equally well, at the established level, in English and in French.
4:40 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
We have external recruitment. In that case, if we have a bilingual position, we can staff that position on a non-imperative basis. If we opt for the non-imperative approach, we give the person two years to become bilingual. As regards bilingual positions, approximately 15% to 17% of them are staffed on a non-imperative basis; but they have that period of time to become bilingual. That's what applies in the case of external recruitment.
In internal recruitment, you have to be bilingual, you have to meet all the staffing requirements of the position.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay. Thank you, Madam Barrados.
The next question is from Mr. Warkentin.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you very much.
Madam Barrados, we do appreciate you coming in. We appreciate your insight in this, and we appreciate the work you do every day to ensure that we don't have issues within our civil service. Thank you very much.
I'm going to keep my questions short, because I'm going to split my time with Mr. Epp.
You expressed some concern that the people weren't getting jobs in the civil service the way you would like. I say “through the back door”, not to imply anything sinister, but simply to say that it's not through the avenues you would like to see. What are you doing to address this? You probably have addressed some of it, but is there anything in particular? Are you thinking to cut off the back avenues?
4:40 p.m.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
The first thing I'm trying to do is get a better handle on what exactly is going on. You see all this activity and all these positions and all this movement. I would prefer a public service in which everybody goes through the front doors. I know that sometimes there are immediate needs that have to be met, but I don't want people entering all over the place, because it really does limit access, and it really can be very unfair.
The first thing we're doing is trying to get a much better handle on exactly what those numbers are, and we have databases that allow us to do this. I am expecting that for my annual report this fall I'll be able to lay out those numbers. Once I get a better sense of the numbers, then we'll have to look at each one of those streams and begin to raise the issues about the streams.
The one thing we don't want to do is limit a manager's discretion to get people in for the short term for short-term problems. You don't want to solve one problem and create many other problems. We're now going through those steps. Hopefully, by the fall I'll be able to have a more insightful conversation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
That's fine. Thank you very much.
I want to ask another question.
We say there's no crisis today. I come from an area where there's very high employment. It's very difficult to find anybody to work. The whole situation came very quickly. People were applying for jobs. However, believing there were people who would work simply because they are applying.... There are still a lot of people who are applying, but they're coming from other positions. We have less than zero percent of people to employ.
I put that as a word of caution. I know you will be looking at that, and I know you do watch these things pretty closely. Is there any other indicator that would be the canary in the coal mine on this issue?