Government Operations Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I call the meeting to order.

Let me begin by reading out a brief note from Ms. Thibault. She wanted me to transmit a message to you. She says that she appreciated working with you as part of the team and that she wishes us all success in our future work, and she sends her best regards. This is from Ms. Louise Thibault.

I said I would read this for her. She sent me this note, and I said I would.

To start off, one of our colleagues, Madam Nash, has asked that we pass to the notice of motion right away, if that's fine.

You have to leave early, so if you'd like, you can speak to your notice of motion.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. Thank you, Madame Chair.

My motion is that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates immediately undertake a study on the cuts to the CBC design department, which constitute the selling of government property; that the appropriate officials from the CBC be invited to explain this decision; and that the president of the Canadian Media Guild be invited to explain the impact of this decision.

If I could, Madame Chair, I'd like to say that, clearly, the sale and closing of the CBC design department is, of course, being dealt with by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. However, the issue I wanted to focus on was the issue of the selling of government property. I have toured this facility. I've seen the decades of history, of costumes, of sets, of props. It takes you back to the days of Don Messer's Jubilee. It was from that perspective, and I thought it was pertinent to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Are there any thoughts from other members of the committee?

Ms. Bourgeois, you have the floor.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and I know that that committee is currently studying the mandate and funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think that our colleague Ms. Nash would find it useful to ask her colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to table this motion, as it really has to do with the current lack of funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Poilievre, you have the floor.

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

I am not sure that this motion should be tabled before this committee because the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying it. In my opinion, there is no substantial difference between Ms. Nash's motion and the motion that the other committee is studying. If I understand committee rules correctly, two separate committees cannot study the same thing.

Moreover, parliamentary committees do not normally get involved in the management of crown corporations. Corporations must remain independent from politics and government. Consequently, as a member of the government and as a member of the House—

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Go ahead, Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Poilievre, but we are not here to discuss what is, or what is not the Parliament's mandate. On the other hand, I think that normally, motions are studied in camera. I wish we could stop this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We are not in camera.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Normally, this is not done before witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

The witnesses are here, and this is an open debate. She asked me to table this early, therefore, there is no problem.

Mr. Poilievre, you have the floor.

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

I thank Ms. Bourgeois for her comments, but in any case, I am convinced that neither parliamentary committees nor the government should intervene directly in the management of a crown corporation. Despite the fact that Ms. Nash raised an interesting point, we cannot influence this decision, which belongs to an independent crown corporation. Therefore, I oppose the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I simply wanted to say that the decision belongs to the committee and that this is only one aspect of things. Given the way in which our committee was set up, we can study almost anything. Therefore, it will be up to the committee members to decide whether or not we will follow that path.

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have exactly the same view. First, I think that we are really meddling with the management of the CBC.

Secondly, I think that Ms. Nash should perhaps get in touch with her colleagues who sit on the other committee. I think that this is the right time to submit this to the other committee. I do not think that we should interrupt our current work by doing this.

Therefore, I oppose the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. There is clearly not going to be support for this. But I want to make the case that the reason I had brought this before the committee is that the study undertaken by the heritage committee is going to take some time. Meanwhile, these goods that belong to the people of Canada will be dispersed in a couple of weeks. Once they are lost, a piece of our cultural heritage is lost forever. This came before the committee with that intent.

Thank you for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Madame Nash, for bringing the motion forward. I'm sorry that we couldn't get it through, but maybe at another time we will.

We will now go to our invited guests. We have before us representatives of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. Madame Jauvin is the president, Karen Ellis is the vice-president, and James Ladouceur is acting director general, planning, policy and research, public service renewal division.

As you know, we've been studying the challenges faced by the public service in recruiting and retaining individual workers and the actual future of services to Canadians.

Madame Jauvin, as you may know, we allow the presenters to speak for about ten minutes, and then we open it up to questions from the different parties.

Madame Jauvin.

[Nicole Jauvin, President, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak to the members of your committee.

You invited me, along with my colleagues, to speak to you today about the demographic challenges facing Canada's public service.

My presentation—and I promise not to speak for the full 10 minutes—will deal with these challenges, and also with other factors that are radically changing the environment of the public service at this time.

First, with your permission, I would like to explain briefly our responsibilities as an agency, because it has a relatively new role with regard to human resources in the public service.

The agency was created in 2003, when the legislative reforms to the management of human resources in the public service were introduced. Our fundamental raison-d'être is to modernize and foster excellence in people management within the public service.

I arrived as head of the agency last September, which means that I am still relatively new to the wonderful world of human resources. As president of the agency, I am the government's chief human resources officer. Now, government being government, it's never quite as simple as that, and I have to admit we all find that the HR machinery in the government is a bit complex. So while the agency assumes overall leadership on human resource matters in the public service, there are a number of other players with HR responsibilities out there.

First, there's the Treasury Board Secretariat, which has the authority for labour relations and compensation at all levels except the executive, which is a responsibility of the agency. The Public Service Commission has the authority, as you know, for staffing policy and audit, as well as external recruitment. The Canada School of Public Service delivers all the training according to policy that is set by the Treasury Board on advice from this agency. As a consequence, we at the agency have to play a leadership role to bring coherence and direction to all HR matters in the public service, regardless of whether or not the agency itself holds all the actual levers to make things happen in the system.

Given these responsibilities, I was therefore delighted to respond to your invitation to discuss some of the issues we're facing right now, and more importantly, what we're doing about them.

The federal public service, like all other private and public institutions, is facing demographic challenges as the makeup and diversity of the Canadian workforce changes. We need to attract, recruit, develop, and retain our fair share of talent in the face of increasing domestic and global competition for this vital resource. Fortunately, we have a strong base to build upon. The Public Service of Canada is a valued national institution, and interest in working for the public service is very high. The vast majority of our employees are highly dedicated, skilled, and committed to their work. In fact, our most recent survey shows that 96% of employees were strongly committed to making their organization successful. A lot of people in the private sector would be extremely happy with these numbers But the public service is in a state of change. We're facing internal and external challenges that we cannot ignore. I would like to touch on three in particular. They are the changing nature of our work and the labour market, a changing and more diverse population mix, and an aging population.

Starting with the first one, the changing nature of our work and the labour market, we know that the Canadian economy is facing important challenges. Innovation, productivity, and growing competitive pressures are changing the Canadian workforce and the public service. Demand for highly qualified and highly educated workers is growing. Educational levels are rising. The online workplace is a reality for many Canadians.

This evolution has shifted the level and types of skills required in the public service. Based on the definition we use, roughly 58% of our employees are now knowledge workers, whereas ten years ago this number was about 40%. Globalization has in many ways changed the way we do business, and the business we do, and technological advancements have transformed how we provide services to Canadians. ln addition, the talent pool from which we are drawing is becoming more scarce with such a competitive labour market.

Canada's labour force has changed just as the very nature of its work has changed. Recent trends in immigration, the greater participation of women in the labour market, a growing aboriginal population and new language profiles have brought greater diversity to the labour force. According to forecasts from Statistics Canada, visible minorities could make up 21% of the Canadian population within 10 years. Obviously, the labour market will become even more diversified.

Currently, the public service is doing well in dealing with the representation of women, aboriginal people and handicapped persons. We hire members from all of these designated groups beyond their availability on the Canadian job market.

However, we must do much better with regard to visible minorities. This is a designated group that needs more sustained efforts on our part.

Clearly, we have made some progress. The representation of visible minorities went up from 5.5% in 2000 to 8.1% in 2005 and 8.6% in 2006. However, this is obviously not enough.

Of course, we must continue ensuring the geographic representation of all of Canada's regions within the public service.

The last trend I'd like to address is our aging public service. It's true that Canada's public service is aging. The demographics of the country as a whole show a similar trend.

The current average age of a public servant is 45. This is five years older than in 1990, when the average age was 40. The current average age of a public service executive is 50. The age of a brand-new executive is 46. More than half of all public servants are now over 45.

Departure rates for the public service are traditionally low as compared with the private sector. In the private sector they're at about 8%, and we're at just a little over half that. We expect retirements to peak at around 2013 and then slowly come back down.

The ranks of our youngest employees are strong. Generations X and Y account for 31% of the public service. So we do have a solid foundation to build upon.

We also know that interest in public service jobs is still very high, as Madame Barrados highlighted in her presentation to this committee last month.

If you ask me, therefore, “Is there a crisis looming?”, I will answer, well, maybe, if we were complacent--but we're not. Are we taking these pressures seriously? Absolutely.

One of the first things the Clerk of the Privy Council put on his agenda as head of the public service, when he assumed the responsibility a year ago, was the need to renew the public service. The moment he arrived, Kevin Lynch turned his attention to these challenges and the need for renewal. He launched a process of renewal of the public service based on a practical, results-oriented management approach to achieving and sustaining excellence in the public service. He is doing this with the full support of the Prime Minister and Minister Toews, President of the Treasury Board.

Kevin Lynch created a senior forum of deputy ministers to drive this process of renewal. This deputy minister committee, which is supported by my agency, has been working hard, and has brought forward, after careful analysis of the issues, some specific priorities for action.

We have defined four priority sectors that require our attention.

First, there is integrated planning. We need to understand clearly our current and future activities in the departments and make sure that we have the people and the resources that we need to carry them out. Essentially, we must plan for our needs in personnel at the same time as we make our business plans, so that we can balance our resources.

Secondly, we must deal with recruiting. We must renew and maintain our capacity at all levels. Currently, 86% of our hiring meets our short-term needs, and this is why we need integrated strategic planning. We must also give the public service a better profile as a dynamic and stimulating career choice.

Third, there is training. We must invest in people at all levels, not only to improve their skills, but also to encourage the leadership that we need in the long term.

Fourth, we need a basic infrastructure with systems, procedures and tools that can support planning, recruiting and training. When Parliament adopted the Public Service Modernization Act, it provided us with means for improving our human resource management.

However, we still need to modernize the entire administrative structure that the new legislation involves. This obligation has a great deal of impact, not only on the efficiency and the cost of human resource services, but also on the perception that the younger generation has of the public service, because we want to keep the new recruits with us.

This concrete and practical action plan, based on these priorities, is fully described in the clerk's most recent annual report, which actually was tabled yesterday in Parliament, and I believe that every member of Parliament has received a copy already. Thank you, Chair.

The report is our road map for public service renewal, and it's our response to the challenges we face as an institution. We will certainly be glad to provide this committee with updates as our work progresses.

In closing, Madame Chair, I hope you will agree with me that yes, there are real challenges before us, but the public service is well positioned to effectively manage future pressures. And while we recognize that there is still a lot of work to do, we are confident in our approach. I would certainly welcome your questions and your comments.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Garth Turner.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate having you here.

I'm a little fuzzy on your concrete action plan. It sounded more like principles you were articulating rather than like absolute actions you're effecting to solve the problem you're talking about, particularly the demographic problem. Maybe I didn't quite catch it, but can you just give me sort of the top-line actions you're taking, please?

[Nicole Jauvin]

With pleasure. I thought this question would come up. I was trying not to take the time of the committee in my presentation, which was long and detailed, but I'll capture a few highlights.

For example, “integrated planning”: we've noticed it's really important to enhance the capacity of departments to do their business planning at the same time as their HR planning, so we are going to require that departments actually do that. They're supposed to be doing it, and now we're actually going to ensure that departments are in fact doing that.

One of our responsibilities at the agency is making sure they have the tools to do this. When you have a huge department, it can be very daunting to integrate all your HR needs and your financial needs. It's quite an exercise, but it's absolutely essential, and it's the first thing we need to do.

Second, on recruitment, one of the specific things the clerk has asked is that deputy ministers and senior leaders get personally and directly involved in recruitment, to make sure they're in charge of the recruitment campaigns and that there's attention from the top.

We also need to think about senior-level recruitment and bringing in people at senior levels from outside of the public service. That's not necessarily an easy task. The public service is an established culture and it's not necessarily easy to come in at senior levels. We're working on what we need to do to facilitate this. We're also targeting specific areas in the private sector and other levels of government where we might attract some very interesting candidates at those levels.

We're also doing some recruitment pilots for specific needs we have with respect to financial officers, compensation officers. We find that we have a big need for them. We also have a need for personnel officers, and we're recruiting people at that level. There are a number of other initiatives I could talk about, but that gives you a sense of them.

With respect to development, the Prime Minister announced the “Fellows” program. It is a development program aimed at senior levels, to build bridges between the private sector and the public service. It's an exchange program, if you want, of limited duration, to give both sides a sense of what the other universe is.

Every employee in the public service will have a learning plan. That's something that will be appreciated by all. Of course if you have a learning plan you have to explain why you're not following up on the learning or why you're not being given the time to follow up on the learning. That's another very specific example of something we're doing.

I'm sorry to go on. We are doing these initiatives right now, to make sure we give life to these four priorities.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Let me ask you about a couple of comparisons with the private sector. You said that the average age of your workforce is 45. How does that compare, in general, with large private sector corporations?

[Nicole Jauvin]

It's very difficult to do such comparisons.