Government Operations Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I imagine it would be like seeing the wizard behind the curtain, in some respects.

I guess that's the answer, or not the answer, but that's one of the issues you have identified, and I think all of us around this table can identify, having heard a similar story, that the length of time to be hired by the federal government is a major concern.

Would you say that's the number one issue we have to deal with, or the one we have the power to change at this point--the most power to change?

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

I think there are several things this committee can influence and that it has the power to change; that is one. I would say the other one is to really work on developing a brand for the federal public service. Alberta has a tag line; it's “Alberta's Best is Hiring”. I like that a lot. That little tag line is on everything.

I think it's extremely important that one look at speed to hire. I think it's important that one look at the reputation of the public sector and really build the brand. You should sell it for the wonderful place it is. I mean, really, the opportunity across government is phenomenal. There's probably no other place you can get that experience. I think you have immediate influence on that.

Again, as I mentioned in my testimony, I think you have immediate influence in helping raise the bar in terms of what public service is. Make people proud to be public servants and be proud to be associated with them, instead of—I read all these things; they're not happy.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I have a comment, maybe to you as we move forward. Obviously our time here may be limited, but I'm wondering if we could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We're staying all summer. Didn't you know that?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm hoping. That's why I'm suggesting possible people we might want to bring forward to provide testimony as to what accounts for the lengthy time of hiring. I think we would be well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

There are tough exams as well. There's a lot of stuff.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It would help us to understand, and there may be suggestions that can be made there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

There's something else I'm wondering if you've run into. There are some public sector jobs in the regions of the country. There aren't that many, but there are some. I know that one of the things that prevents some people from taking the promotions, when they're quite capable, is the fact of moving. To consider moving to Ottawa to pay three times for a house to get a small increase, people have said, “No, my life is good here. I'm going to finish raising my family here. I'm not going to go for that promotion because it's too costly. In the end, I'm not further ahead, I'm further behind if I take that job.”

How much of that have you seen? That could be an issue.

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

I haven't seen much of it.

I'm originally from a very small town in New Brunswick—Woodstock is the name of the place, which I always say wherever I am—and I know that government jobs, at all levels, are valued there. They're solid. They're stable. They're well paid, for the region.

Now, on the issue of people not wanting to move—and there's probably nothing you can do about that—people can manage in different ways. And people ought to have opportunities to grow and develop in different ways. You may want to move them to give them more responsibilities. Maybe they can still have those responsibilities but be off site.

Many organizations do that so well now. As you know, you have the matrix organizations, where you might have the head of marketing in Dallas, Texas, and the head of HR in Toronto and the head of something else in China. And they do very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I think the federal government has to consider doing exactly the same thing, and they haven't. They have had the habit of sucking in all the jobs to the major regions and leaving the others behind. I've seen it myself.

I think that's another way of ensuring continuity.

Madame Bourgeois ou Monsieur Nadeau.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. MacBride-King, I found your presentation extremely interesting. You have supported figures, and if it were possible for you to submit that report to us, we would very much appreciate it.

In addition, your CV speaks volumes. You are a leading figure in the world of human resources and management. I imagine reference must often be made to you. Have you previously spoken with the federal government people in your many meetings? Have you previously talked to them about the studies you've conducted?

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

Absolutely.

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

Are those people aware?

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

What's interesting, Madam Bourgeois, is that what happened happens a lot to organizations. Studies get published and get shelved. Only those who authored them remember them. So I remember that study and raise it quite often, because I think it is important.

In fact, I have a copy here, and it was funded by the Government of Canada. It was funded by Human Resources Development Canada at the time, Public Works and Government Services Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, Industry Canada, etc.

A lot of federal government departments funded it. The challenge is that they were interested in it at the moment, but the crisis died down. September 11, 2001, hit. We saw the high-tech boom drop. We saw less pressure in both the private and public sectors for talent.

We argued, and I argued very strongly, don't take your eye off the ball, because we have some structural issues happening with the aging of the population. So don't lose sight, and most organizations did lose sight. There are only a few that maintained sight, and the federal government was one that lost sight.

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

I operate on the principle that the federal government—if not the minister, at least the deputy ministers, in short people that you know in this environment—is aware of the risk and of the challenges it will be facing around 2012. Madam Chair, I find it quite peculiar that these people told us, when they appeared before the committee, that there weren't any problems and that everything was under control. I would like to bring back Ms. Barrados and Ms. Jauvin for the simple reason that it was about strategic planning.

I asked Ms. Jauvin whether she had started planning since taking up her duties six months earlier. I don't remember whether she answered yes or no. She didn't seem to know what I was talking about. Whatever the case may be, I think it's important that you're here. I think the situation in the federal public service somewhat reflects our society. People are having increasing difficulty finding employees who have the necessary skills and, what is more, want to work, put some heart into their work. That's part of the problem.

The second problem is that governments, one after the other, have applied cuts in order to get labour at the lowest possible cost in the public service. We won't hide it: four or five years ago, people at Statistics Canada worked awful hours and were very poorly paid, and, if they left their jobs, they were unable to find other positions elsewhere. They were struck off the list everywhere by the federal government, which gave no indication that those people had been in its service.

As for the third problem, don't you think that a mentoring program would be ideal in the case of our federal public service? Couldn't employees with experience, who know how to work and respond to the public support these youths and show them how to do things, particularly since people in society today have fewer and fewer values?

Lastly, the unions criticized the working climate in the federal public service a few years ago. Next week, we're going to hear from a person who is responsible for protecting the whistle blowers. There is a poor working climate in the federal public service, and we are all responsible for that, including the ministers.

We could probably have the best employees in the world. Highly qualified people would be ready to stay on the job until the age of 75, but can no longer bear this federal public service. What do you think of this situation?

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

You mentioned a number of things that I think are important.

Throughout the federal public service there are pockets of excellence where really interesting things are happening and where mentoring programs are going on. I know there are, and it just strikes me that you haven't heard about them and that you don't know what's possible. StatsCan is well known as being an excellent employer; so too is the CRA. I feature them as case studies as some of the best in class in Canada, so there are some excellent things going on. In other areas there are obviously improvements needed.

You asked me about the work environment. I think because of all the changes, all the things that have been happening, and all the scandals, etc., there has been an ever-increasing tightening and this control business. Part of it is needed, but part is not; frankly, it goes beyond accountability. People are afraid to turn sideways—you know, don't buy me a hamburger—because that's not a good thing; it's seen as bad.

I think risk-taking is not part of the environment in the federal public sector because of some of those issues. Risk-taking and being innovative and being able to try new things are important to people, all people, so I think that's important.

Questions in the 2004 public service employee survey ask people who are thinking of stepping out of the public sector in the next five years what some of the key reasons are for doing so. Again, as I mentioned, the first reason has to do with the 30% who are about to retire within five years. I thought 30% was a pretty high number, but at any rate....

One of the other top reasons has to do with the work environment. I mentioned that for youth in the public sector—those who are up to 29 years of age—that was the fourth-highest reason for wanting to exit the workforce.

I think a lot needs to be done. In a lot of the work we've done over the years, we were looking at workload issues and work life issues. Those are all very important to young people. They're also very important to older people, who may want to exit the labour force on a “sometimes” basis and work on a “sometimes” basis, so flexibility is important.

I think all of those things that you raised are important.

I would say, however, that lots of things are happening in the federal government, and I'd be surprised, and am surprised, that as a committee you haven't been able to see and hear all about them, because there are some very positive things happening. Everything can be improved, obviously, but in my many years of experience with the federal public service, I've seen some pretty great examples of good works and good efforts being done.

However, there are all these other issues that need to be addressed as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madam Nash, did you want to ask another question? I have nobody else on the list and I'm wondering—

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

I'll just ask one last question.

When we asked Ms. Barrados about the demographic change, we asked her if it was a crisis, and she said she didn't think it was a crisis but a challenge, an issue that had to be dealt with, but that she was confident and comfortable that the government would deal with it.

Let me ask you that same question. Do you think the demographic challenges constitute a crisis for the government, or do you think it's being adequately handled?

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

Would I call it a crisis? I think if it's not handled it will be a crisis. That's the way I'll deal with that question. I think there are some.... I'm going to be careful about how I respond.

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

It's going to put you on the spot—

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

I want to be careful about this. I will say it's a tough spot for someone—the witness you mentioned, in her position—to come to tell you the house is falling down. It's a tough position to be in.

The house isn't falling down, I would also say, and I do think the federal public service is doing an adequate job.

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

The government does a lot of things right.

[Judith L. MacBride-King]

They do, absolutely, but I also think I would be very careful of being too complacent in the face of some of that excellent work. I do think that if actions aren't taken more quickly to fix some of those things we talked about—speed to hire, the work environment, better learning and development opportunities, better opportunities for people to grow without leaving their region—then this place, the federal public service, will lose; it'll lose that race against the Suncors or the Syncrudes from Alberta, or the IBMs, or the Governments of Alberta or New Brunswick, or others.

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

I just want to correct the record. I guess I meant to say that the public service does a lot of things right, because if I say the government does a lot of things right, one of my colleagues will be quoting me in some context that is unfavourable. I should say the public service does a lot of things right.

I appreciate that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much for coming before us. It was quite a good presentation and quite refreshing. We'll take this into consideration.

Before we adjourn, I'll remind you that the clerk tells me we will be able to have Madame Ouimet before the committee on Thursday afternoon. She's the new public sector integrity commissioner.

Oui, madame Bourgeois.