Government Operations Committee on Nov. 19th, 2007

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay, because when we were talking about the Office of the Correctional Investigator, you found staffing patterns that compromised the values of fairness, transparency, and access, and that nine out of ten appointments were not compliant with the delegation agreement and as a result had to be placed under increased supervision.

I notice that the Auditor General looked at that same department before you took on the role and found serious problems in that department. Are you telling us there has been no real progress in there and we still need someone to go in there and hold their hands?

[Maria Barrados]

The Auditor General has a different mandate from what we do. The Auditor General went in and dide a broad-based audit on management, with a focus on financial management, and made some observations about questionable staffing activities up to 2004. We were just going through the transition of going to the new act and redoing delegations. Since the Auditor General had raised a question about staffing, we then decided that it was important for us to go and see whether we had appropriately delegated. We had done a first analysis and asked, “Are the conditions in place to delegate?” We thought they were. We wanted to make sure that this was a correct judgment, based on the Auditor General's audit.

Our conclusion was that they had made a number of significant improvements but there were still problems. So we imposed a condition on the delegation, but a lower-level condition, which requires them to report more frequently to us so we can make sure they get the staffing on the right track. As we could see, they had a number of the elements in place, but they weren't actually getting the decisions right. So we're now asking that they come and report back more frequently so we can make sure their follow-up actions are correct.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I guess the question I'd have, though, is if nine out of ten appointments were not compliant, and you found problems that compromised values of fairness, transparency, and access, wouldn't you feel there would be a need for more immediate remedial action to be taken with that office?

[Maria Barrados]

What we do--and there are some cases where we have actually removed the delegations and people aren't allowed to do any of their staffing--is we look to see if they have the policy framework in place. The answer was yes. Do they have plans in place? The answer was yes, they did now have plans in place. Do they have a service provider and are they clear on the relationship with the service provider? They were not, but they have that now in place. Then we looked at the specific transactions and we were not happy with those transactions. They agree there are problems; they've committed to correcting them. Now we're going to watch to make sure they're following through on their commitments.

Mary, do you want to add to that?

[Mary Clennett]

Maybe I could just add that when the Auditor General did their audit, they found problems with the service provider. We subsequently found that the service provider had improved the quality of their service, and that was a key part for us as well. It wasn't just having a good framework. They also had a service provider who was now challenging them on the way they were doing things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question for the president of the Public Service Commission of Canada. Words like “renewal” and “modernization” are obviously very important and are key missions of responsibility. They're also, I think you would agree with me, not just words, but they illustrate the importance of transparency and accountability. When we talk about the merits and integrity of the staffing system, I'm a little bit concerned when we hear about things like a lack of specialists in the payroll department and that there are phantom positions. So how do you reconcile those issues with the whole issue of transparency and accountability and integrity of the system?

[Maria Barrados]

It's a difficult question, and I'll try to not give you a lecture and not answer the question.

Our problem is that we have a very large system that involves many people. It will never be perfect, so we set standards. We have a set of values. We will have cases where things are not perfect. Our job is to identify the things that are perfect and try to get correction and take corrective action.

You'll see in the reports that on the one hand we flag those things that were not done correctly that we want done better--specific transactions. We'll also go after systems issues. But overall my conclusion is that the system is really quite robust--perfect, no; there are issues we have to work on, absolutely, and there are some warning signs, yes. But do I have fundamental worries about the system? I would say no at this point.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Vincent, it is your turn.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In the text of your presentation that you handed out to us, I see that you examined the years 1990 to 2006, and that there were about 157 public servants who were assigned to transitional positions. More specifically:

In 15 of these staffing actions, relating to 13 individuals, we found that there was a misuse of the staffing system. Special efforts were made to move people into positions where they had no reasonable intention of staying.

Who are the people who appoint public servants to positions that they do not want?

Let me continue. A little further on in your text, you say:

This was done to facilitate the movement of the individuals concerned and to ensure that they had an easy route back into the public service. These types of action create the appearance of lack of political impartiality, and are not in accordance with the values of transparency and non-partisanship.

You reported this to Treasury Board and it was expected to produce a plan. Was a plan actually produced, and what did Treasury Board do to prevent such things from happening again?

[Maria Barrados]

Our procedure requires us to do an audit. This audit was performed in response to questions put by members of Parliament. Last year, we discovered two cases. We investigated both cases, and we took corrective measures. We had many questions. We had to find out whether there were any other similar cases. We began by doing an audit to find out if there were any other cases; we came up with 15 more cases.

Pursuant to this, we handed the cases over to investigators. I cannot give you any names. I do not know the names of the persons involved. We handed the files over to investigators, and it is up to them to decide whether these cases deserve a full investigation. Then we will see the results of the investigations and we will decide what to do next. I will certainly report the investigation results to Parliament, but the disclosure of names depends on specific situations. I must comply with principles of privacy—

[Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Principles of privacy and protection of personal information.

[Maria Barrados]

That is it.

Regarding this kind of movement, I had a problem with people setting up positions without any intention of using them. Ms. Mary Clennett may give you a more detailed explanation of how this is done.

Before giving the floor to Ms. Clennett, let me say that we concluded that the Secretariat of the Treasury Board must monitor this kind of movement, and that it is not doing so at this time. It must work out a better policy and make a recommendation to Treasury Board to implement this policy. In our opinion, this kind of movement is not adequately monitored.

Mary will give you more details about this kind of movement.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You mentioned two specific cases. I gather that these people were appointed although there were no positions for them nor any work for them to do. They did not use any pejorative terms, but they wanted to find some way of shelving these people. They invented positions to which they could appoint these people.

[Maria Barrados]

These people have positions, but they do not intend to do the work.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

There are positions, but there is no work to do.

[Maria Barrados]

They do not intend to stay in those positions or to do that work. In fact, if you have a position in the public service, you normally keep it.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understood that in the two cases you mentioned earlier, there were positions without any work assigned to them. Then, the investigation showed, perhaps not as clearly as you did, that there was some abuse in connection with this.

[Maria Barrados]

Regarding these two positions, these were people who worked in ministers' offices. When a public servant has worked for more than a year in a minister's office, there is a priority system provided for his return to the public service. A person following this system receives no pay while awaiting an available position. Thus, while there is no position, the person retains priority but is not paid.

In both cases, these people used their positions in the minister's office to create positions in the public service so that they could come back to it. They were planning to get paid immediately by coming into fictitious positions which led immediately to other positions. They had no intention of doing that work. It was simply a way of getting around the priority system.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Gobeil, have you anything to add?

[Linda Gobeil]

We are basically saying that these people should have been entitled to what we call an administrative priority, which is a priority over others for getting positions in the public service. Now, to get these people around the priority, positions were created that they could immediately occupy. This is how they got around the priority. In both cases, the priority system was entirely sidetracked and this is why we took corrective measures last year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Let us now continue with Mr. Albrecht.

Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again, Madam Barrados. It's fantastic that you have undertaken these different studies. Many of us have anticipated this report, because we discussed these issues at length at an earlier date. On October 3, 2006, we talked the first time about these phantom jobs and speculation that this activity had taken place within the civil service.

You and I had a discussion at that point, and you explained what your actions would be. In fact, you have undertaken that action to a large extent. You found at least twenty people who were abusing the system in terms of these phantom jobs. Your investigation is not complete, but I understand from some media interviews you have given that you will be investigating whether some type of disciplinary action will be necessary, specifically if revocation of appointments will be appropriate.

I wonder if you could elaborate a little on that and give us some information as to what a good reason for revocation would be--exactly what the abuse would need to have been. If it isn't so serious that they should have their appointment revoked, please explain what other type of action you might take to rectify the situation.

[Maria Barrados]

We identified 24 transactions that were a problem, involving 20 people. Fifteen of these were what we were calling the facilitated positions that involved 13 people. We turned all 24 transactions, involving 20 people, over to the investigators.

We have a range of corrective actions that are available to the commission under the legislation. These are serious steps. That's why we go through an investigative process. In the two cases we investigated last year, we revoked the appointments. So that meant we examined the appointment that was made; we felt it was an improper appointment, and we revoked it. That meant the appointment no longer stood. So that, at one extreme, is something we can do.

There's a whole range of other things we could do. What we can do to correct depends entirely on the circumstance. In some of these cases, which were not the facilitated positions, there was nothing that indicated there had been a proper evaluation of language or security or whether the person met the qualifications. Perhaps the requirement is that that be done. It could be something like that.

In some of these cases, when all the facts are looked at, it may have been justified. There was something missing. Or in some cases, we take some form of corrective measure, or there is some form of discipline. For instance, we actually will send a disciplinary letter. So there is a range of things we can do.