Government Operations Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Ellis.

All of this brings back memories of the 1990s. I myself am a former public servant. I am not sure whether you recall, but at that time the talk was of salary freezing. This meant that the only way for a young employee to earn more was to change jobs. I worked for a number of different departments in a number of different capacities and eventually ended up drafting memoranda of understanding between various departments. I was also involved in union-management negotiations. In short, I had a great career.

I sought out jobs in the IT field. What led me to leave the public service was not that there was not enough work, but, rather, primarily, the lack of challenge or recognition. That being said, it would be remiss of me not to mention the grievances of certain colleagues who provided us with unsurpassed support even though their workload was too heavy. For some managers, when it came to setting priorities, their career came first, end of story, and their employees were an afterthought.

At the beginning of last week, we heard from public service union representatives who explained to us the salary discrepancies that affect people working in compensation services.

The same problem existed when I was a public servant, and I remember that other employees did all that they could to help us, because we all worked together. Everybody wants to be paid, and to be paid on time, and everybody wants information; however, the compensation officers have too much work on their plate and, to be honest with you, I have never had the impression that their problem is a priority for the department.

I appreciate that each department has its own challenges. Priorities and services vary from one department to the next. Some are more political, others are more operational. In addition, some departments are going through restructuring. I saw a lot of restructuring in my time, it was awful. The department changed its name three times in two years.

There comes a point when the employees seem to become demotivated. You are trying to create the impression that everything is going swimmingly, when that is not in fact the case in all departments. It would perhaps be better to recognize that there is a problem and try to find the solution.

That is why we are so interested in planning. That is what we are looking for as a committee. There is a problem, and we want to know how you are addressing it.

I have also worked in management. Managers want the best from their employees. I will always remember something that my last employer said to me. He said that his aim was to see me promoted above him. That is what happened and we celebrated. That is something that you do not see in the public service.

I am going to ask you to explain something in simple terms for us. The various departments are in competition with one another. Some departments offer higher salaries than others for equivalent work. This is something that I experienced in the 1990s. Departments tried to grab the best employees and sometimes offer better conditions to certain employees in order to keep them.

On Tuesday, we heard that these salary discrepancies can be as much as $14,000. The public service is a small world; people talk to one another and word gets out. This sort of situation undermines morale and could also lead to people asking themselves whether it is worth staying with the public service. I can well believe that there are cases of $14,000 salary discrepancies. The people who told us about them had proof. Are you aware of this problem?

To cut to the chase, what do you plan on doing to resolve this problem? Are you carrying out more detailed investigations in some areas? Do you carry out investigations or audits in those departments where there are problems?

As the witnesses said on Tuesday, this sort of problem does not affect all departments. It does, however, seem to affect more operational services, such as, for example, Service Canada. When I was a public servant, I remember Service Canada employees saying that they had to handle a crazy amount of legislation. How can they be expected to provide customer service in such conditions? Service Canada struggled to recruit staff as employees were disheartened at having to interpret five, six or even seven pieces of legislation, including the Immigration Act. They knew that the information they were giving could have important consequences for the person who was requesting it.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this situation. I went through it myself in the 1990s, and a decade later the same problem still exists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You used up a lot of time, Ms. Faille, and there is not much left for Ms. Ellis to answer.

Would you like to give us a brief answer?

[Karen Ellis]

I would like to make three points. Firstly, the problem of excessive workload does still exist. I agree with you that the best way to manage it is section by section, branch by branch. It is not always easy. There are seasonal trends and departmental trends, but that being said, there is always work to be done. Managing it appropriately is part and parcel of good planning and good management.

Secondly, I think that the issues brought before the committee earlier this week actually relate to classification. It is not my area of expertise, but I think I am right in saying that salaries are determined by an official system of classification. If there is a problem or a perception of unfairness, then it ought to be referred to a classification expert. Classification reviews take time; professional groups can wait for them for a long time. Classification is a huge and complex field. There is a lot of work being done on this front with some professional groups.

If you would like a brief update on the matter, we could send you some information. A great deal of progress has been made with some three to five groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

What we were told was that, depending on the agency or department, people were being paid up to $14,000 more for the same work, and sometimes even for slightly easier work. When we asked about this in December, we were told that it was a different issue.

Classification problems can take years to resolve.

[Karen Ellis]

I know, I know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We should not wait years before acting on this problem. I think that it could be resolved by deciding to place all compensation officers on the same pay scale as certain other groups. It is a challenge. However, the solution has been partly implemented and we should continue to roll it out in order to ensure that we hold on to the compensation officers that we train, rather than losing them as soon as they have finished their training. I am saying this because I know that you are not familiar with the issue. If these poor people have to wait for reclassification, they will leave and we will be faced with a real problem again. We cannot wait for reclassification.

That being said, I will now hand over to Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to come back to that if I have time, because I think we need to pursue that question further.

Madam Ellis, you've referred a number of times today to the new regime, that deputy heads and line managers have primary responsibility and flexibility and that your role now, as the Canada Public Service Agency, is to guide, support, and monitor.

I'm a new member here, and I'm just wondering if you could help me in about one minute to understand the current system in contrast to one before 2003. In a practical way, how is this different?

[Karen Ellis]

I'll go as quickly as I can, and what we can probably also do is follow up with a one-page summary of some categories for you.

Essentially, before the new regime came in, there really was a lot more centralized direction and management of things like staffing and recruitment. A lot of work was actually run and managed by the Public Service Commission and, in some cases, the Treasury Board. Those are central agencies.

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

So an agency would tell you they needed x number of people, and you would recruit them?

[Karen Ellis]

Yes, that's how it works in large degree. And departments could always do some recruitment. For example, Finance has always gone out and found people on campus. But many departments have worked with the Public Service Commission, which has done the actual recruiting, and they still do, but they offer it as an optional service to departments.

But the main thing is that when it comes to meeting your employment equity objectives, developing your recruitment strategies, and figuring out your staffing strategies, departments are doing the bulk of that themselves. They obviously have to respect the laws, policies, and guidance, but they actually have to sit down and do that thinking and do that reflection in a much more in-depth way now. It's not that they didn't do any of that before, but there's been a real shift in attitude, that this is now for you to do.

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

Okay. I would be helped by a one-page summary of how those changes are reflected.

[Karen Ellis]

Okay, we will follow up on that, and we can give it to you easily.

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

I want to come back to the point of classification, because in our last meeting, the message I received was that there is a classification problem and a huge discrepancy in terms of financial reimbursement. The part that was of most concern to me was not the fact that it exists, and not the fact that it's complex and may take years to reclassify, but that I heard them say there is an unwillingness to sit down and talk about these issues. It seems to me that's one of the obligations we would have with our different representatives, to at least listen to them. Whether or not we can achieve all of their expectations is the second question.

But am I hearing from you today that you're more than willing to sit down and discuss these issues in a timely manner, so that we can be assured as a committee that we're moving ahead on this?

[Karen Ellis]

I can't make any commitments about classification, because I don't deal in that area, but what I would say to you is that an expert colleague of mine handles classification within the agency and, I'm sure, could come to speak to you about what's happening on classification.

But I wasn't sure of what you said. You listened to a variety of union representatives earlier this week. Again, the way in which a particular group is classified now is on a group-by-group basis. For example, the foreign service officers had a reform of their classification regime, which was implemented in July 2005. At the Canada Border Services Agency, the newly created Border Services group is an occupational group implemented in February 2007. The economic and social sciences group has had good work done, and it says here that they're going to have an outcome after the current round of collective bargaining.

So without being an expert and without trying to speak for colleagues who know this stuff, I believe there is some appropriate involvement of unions as these issues are dealt with by the experts. I'd rather ask you to have them come to tell you about it, because I don't want to give you wrong information, but I do believe there is involvement as each particular group has work done on classification.

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

I respect that.

Is there more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You have one minute.

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

On the whole issue of movement—lateral or vertical—within an organization, I think we could argue the pros and cons of the value of movement and new blood and institutional memory, and all of those things, but it would certainly seem to me that there's value in the long-term service of an employee—perhaps not in the same job, but in the same department, because of their institutional memory.

Are there ways you've considered, or that we could consider, to give incentives to employees to stay within those departments, so that their expertise would be better tapped, as opposed to this very rapid movement—and then the retraining that goes with it and the time that's lost from that?

[Karen Ellis]

I think it's important to remember that some particular groups are moving more than others. I take your point, because you will often have some departments that are really characterized by the many people who stay, with a large proportion of the employees staying in that department for their whole career. And you're right that they may move around and do different things, but whether it's a science or policy interest they have, there can be a lot of stability in some of our organizations, depending on the business. In other cases, there is more movement with generalist skills, which one would expect.

But again, I go back to your question on whether there is an incentive. I think the incentive is from every employee really feeling and believing and experiencing that their contribution and career is important, and that whoever is managing them is working with them on an ongoing basis, because again, it's the good leadership, the interesting work, and the environment that's going to have people make choices. Do you know what I mean?

But we have to respect that some people do want to move around. Can we manage that with them? Can they do a decent amount of time with us, so we can get a bit of the return on investment, if you will? But can we also see them as a corporate player in the public service, who is going to bring value wherever they may move? I think those are the fundamentals that are key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Ellis, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your French. I am truly delighted to hear from an English-speaking official—at least, I think your mother tongue is English—who can say more than a couple of sentences in French. Congratulations.

[Karen Ellis]

Thank you.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Now that I have congratulated you, allow me to raise a more troubling issue. I apologize for not having been here when you made your presentation, but I do have a copy of the text and certain key terms, such as “demographic challenges” caught my attention. You speak about making renewal a priority, and also mention the importance of adequate systems and processes.

If I understood correctly, you said earlier that you have already analyzed, and made progress on, employment equity for women, persons with disabilities, first nations and aboriginal persons. However, you also said that you have not yet acted with regard to employment equity for visible minorities, and this is what I would like to discuss.

Could you tell me how many people belonging to a visible minority are employed by the public service, and what percentage of them remain at the same classification level throughout their career? Is it a higher or lower percentage than that across the public service as a whole? What is the typical career path of a visible minority member in the public service? Is it the same as that of anybody else? Do visible minorities tend to move horizontally, from one department to the next, while staying at more or less the same level? Do they tend to be promoted more quickly than non-visible minorities? In other words, what is the typical career profile of a member of a visible minority in the public service?

I would also like to know why you have not yet addressed employment equity for visible minorities and when you plan on doing so.

[Karen Ellis]

I greatly appreciate your question, Ms. Folco, because employment equity is one of my responsibilities at the agency. However, I would like to clarify that I did not say that we had not done anything.

What I said was that, according to the available statistics, we are meeting the workforce availability for three of the groups. We have achieved good results for these three groups. We have also made progress with visible minorities, but not with regard to their workforce availability.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Why?

[Karen Ellis]

There are a number of reasons. Allow me to start from the beginning. We achieved some very good results by including targeted employment equity group recruitment in our integrated plan. Each department really has to focus its planning on those groups which are underrepresented. If a particular group is underrepresented, sound planning and targeted recruitment strategies have to be implemented.

The new Public Service Modernization Act provides departments with greater flexibility for targeted staffing when competitions are run. They are able to state that a certain group is underrepresented within their organization and, consequently, give preference to qualified candidates from that particular group.