Government Operations Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Maria Barrados]

With respect to the question about cost recovery, it is true that the variability of revenues makes it difficult to make accurate estimates, but we also face technical difficulties.

I will ask Mr. Charlebois to give you a brief explanation of the technical problems.

[Richard Charlebois, Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

The federal government has two types of revenues. One of the two is called a revolving fund, which is used for major operations. As for the Public Service Commission, it operates on a vote-netting system. It received $6.5 million in 2006-07 and $9.4 million last year.

This year, we expect to receive $11 million. We worked very hard with our clients to improve our services and we are very proud of the progress we have made. At the same time, we are in discussion with people from the Treasury Board Secretariat to obtain greater financial flexibility. For instance, we want to obtain our budget for next year. However, that requires special authorization.

[Maria Barrados]

We do not always have enough money at our disposal to make investments. If we depend on cost recovery, we should have money to invest. The timing of when we receive our funding is also problematic. Receiving it at the end of the year creates difficulties for the next year. These are technical problems, but we must address them. We have the Treasury Board's support.

The other question is a little more difficult for me. Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Lemaire, would like to add something. At the PSC, we are not really responsible for labour relations, but obviously, if we are asked to do some hiring, if we are responsible for the entire process and we are asked to give our opinion on how it works, we must have a good idea of how the management team operates.

[Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

All employment policies in the workplace are the employer's responsibility. However, in the case of each organization or each manager we are committed to, we are responsible for the workplace. Collective bargaining is one thing, but when it comes to daily operations and employee-management relations, a series of policies apply, specifically relating to harassment in the workplace and employment equity. Organizations are turning more and more to employee engagement surveys. The PSC is also taking this approach. Twice a year, we try to get a sense of how employees are feeling. There is also an individual assessment and feedback mechanism, as well as a government-wide survey to determine the frame of mind—if I may use that expression—of people in their workplace. In short, I draw a distinction between collective bargaining, which relates to labour relations, and labour relations as far as organizational units are concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming this morning. We appreciate your testimony and your comments.

I'm going to pass by the estimates for a few minutes. Maybe, if I have some time towards the end, I'll quiz you on a couple of things there.

I don't think it will come as a surprise to you, Madame Barrados, but what I'd like to talk to you about this morning is this whole issue of classification creep. You and I have had discussions both here at the committee and elsewhere on this issue.

As I've done a little bit more reading and have become, I believe, a little more educated on this whole issue—but certainly not an expert yet—I have a couple of questions. We know that there are a number of reasons for the changes in classification. Maybe one would be the organized promotion of certain employees after they accomplish certain levels of education or training, and that type of thing; there are those organized methodologies for moving people through classifications. There is also the understanding around this committee that there is a change in the work that's expected from the civil service. We have a lot of people moving into computer tech positions that are increasingly being created as the decades pass, and obviously as a result there are other jobs that are eliminated as these other jobs expand.

The one that concerns me, though, is this change of classification for retention purposes. That is the one that really concerns me.

First of all, can you identify for us how much of the increase of salary across the civil service last year was as a result of a change in classification? Do you know what the number is, or do you have any idea? Has there ever been a number established regarding that particular change, and would you know what it was in the last year? Would you venture a guess?

[Maria Barrados]

It's a good question, and I don't think I could even venture a reasonable guess, and that's because after our last discussions I went to try to find out how many reclassifications there actually were. They are posted, but to actually get a number of how many there were, there just wasn't a handy number for me to get on the reclassifications.

And then of course we have different types of reclassifications. So because we have different types of reclassifications we have to sort that out too. If it is a reclassification because the job has really changed, that's appropriate. If it's a reclassification because it was a development program, that is appropriate. If it was a reclassification because people really just weren't prepared to do the work that it required to manage people so they would be interested in staying, or to go through a recruitment process, bring people in from outside the government, and train them to do the job, then I have a problem.

So I'm sorry I can't really give you a number.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That's exactly what my concern is as well, for these people who are still doing the same job as they were back before the classification change, but they are being paid more because there has been a classification change. As I was mentioning to one of my colleagues, the big concern with this is if you simply promote somebody to a different job and expect that they do different things and have more responsibilities, we can understand that, if you have to use that as a retention tool to actually promote an individual but then their job changes. But when managers have a situation where, within their department or within their agency, they simply reclassify a group of people with the hopes that those people will stay, then what happens across government is this. I would venture a guess that because all government agencies and departments are in competition with one another, especially during severe labour shortages, as we experienced even a couple of years ago, I think all departments are then put under pressure to make those same changes.

So that's a concern, and then of course what happens is now the economy has changed and certainly the workforce conditions have changed, I think what we would find is that if we put those jobs out in their previous incarnation, as they were classified, we would find people who would be willing to fill those position, possibly in droves. But what we don't have now, I don't think, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, is the capacity. Because there was no real skilled management in terms of changing the classification, there isn't, I wouldn't imagine, any effort to change the classification back to what it was before.

So I'm wondering if there is any oversight or if there's an audit provision or some type of accountability for these managers to ensure that they're not doing this initially, but then in fact if they have done it--we certainly have seen cases where this has taken place-- if there are any provisions to force these managers now to change those classifications back to what they probably should be.

[Maria Barrados]

At the prompting of this committee, I actually went back and looked at some previous work I had been involved in on this issue of classification. There was a report by the Auditor General in May 2003 that gives, in my humble opinion, a fairly good description of what the problems with classification had been in the Government of Canada.

It describes the whole story of the universal classification system, which was an effort to modernize and reform classification and ended up failing and costing a lot of money. At the end of the piece, the Auditor General is recommending that there be some clear direction given on how the reforms are going to go forward and how the system is modernized. For it to work well, you must have a system that reflects the work that's in the government, and some of the classification standards are indeed very old.

The Treasury Board then took it upon itself, in part in response to this, I think, to do a big study on pay and classification, which was authored by Jim Lahey. He concluded in his study that this was an area that was really under-managed and that there was a need to manage this system. In his study, he does a fairly lengthy analysis. There was a need to manage this system and also to have clearer oversight of the system. He talks specifically about the requirement to do audits of the classifications.

The best person to speak to this is the chief human resources officer, because this is now squarely her responsibility, and not the responsibility of the commission. To date, we have had movement on trying to update the standard, but it's piecemeal. As far as I know, there is no real oversight and no real audit of the classification system. There is only a requirement that all reclassifications be posted.

The only real control on classifications is for EX-4 and EX-5 positions--these are assistant deputy ministers--where the Treasury Board controls the numbers of these positions. To get a new position created, you need to have a Treasury Board submission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'll come back to it later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Sure. We had extended the time again here, just to allow the very full answer that was given.

Ms. Hall Findlay for five minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

This is a bit of a broader question. It may put you on the spot a little bit, and I understand that, but it needs to be asked. We've heard anecdotally about some real challenges in the last number of years in regard to not a politicization of the public service, but a greater level of control or criticism of statements made by public servants. I was going to say hiring and firing of certain people, but it's more specifically firing. Donald Savoie has written extensively on this.

We talked a little bit earlier about morale in the public service. Is there a sense that there is a growing lack of separation between the political arm and what we have traditionally prized as the independence of the public service?

[Maria Barrados]

It's a very good question and a very interesting question.

I'm not really in a position to talk about control. Those would be the kinds of directions that might come to public servants about what they can and cannot say. I think I have said before this committee that there I can only speak about my own personal experience, and I have no difficulty. I relate freely with Parliament, I relate freely with the media, and I have had no directions or controls, nor have I run into any problems with any of the policies.

The question about politicization is a very big preoccupation of mine. As a background to that, in the early days there was a total ban on political activity on the part of public servants. That has since changed. We had a court case in the early nineties. It used the charter to say that public servants actually have political rights. They can be politically active, but they must do it in such a way as to not compromise the non-partisan nature of the public service. When the new legislation came in, that charge was put with the Public Service Commission. We actually have two regimes that we are very preoccupied about. One is that public servants get appropriate permission to run for political office. That has required us to put in place a separate unit that does that work. I've had some court challenges, which have reminded me to follow due process in that. It covers municipal elections. On average, there are about 50 or 60 public servants who are running for political office. Our preoccupation there would be that this political involvement in no way compromise the non-partisan nature of their job. We have to do a lot of analysis on the job. We do have discussions about changing people to different types of jobs, and, if they lose, where they go back to.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

This will seem rude. I don't mean to jump in, because I'm actually very interested in that aspect of it as well.

I understand that you may have had no personal challenges, but in this instance, with respect to the politicization, I was specifically saying to you as president of the commission that there has been a significant issue raised about others feeling as though they are not free to speak, feeling that they are constrained in their jobs because of a fear of political recrimination. It is a more political question, but it's more asking you, in your capacity of leading this organization, whether what we are hearing is valid. We're hearing this on the street, and we're hearing it anecdotally from people who are afraid of being let go, who are afraid of being not considered for a promotion within the public service if they contradict the government.

Are you hearing that? It should be of concern. I just wanted to know your perspective as the leader of the organization.

[Maria Barrados]

My concern is always that the judgments that are made regarding people's promotions for other jobs are based on the merit of the job. We go at that fairly vigorously. If there is an instance when someone feels that they have not been fairly treated, I expect them to complain, and we do have the recourse mechanisms to pursue that. So we would pursue it.

The other area I wanted to touch on briefly, which I'm very concerned about, is that we maintain the line between bureaucracy and political activity.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would say that for both ends, regarding political influence from here, from above, but also for political activity from below.

Just for the record, we're extremely proud as Canadians of the fact that we have had an independent civil service on both sides. Any deterioration of that is of real concern.

[Maria Barrados]

I absolutely agree with you. I do have worries that there has been a tendency to have some blurring of that line. I had, for example, done a piece of work on movement of ministerial staff, public servants moving into ministerial staff and then coming back into the public service. I've been very unhappy about how some of that had been done and I requested that there be policy done on this to make this kind of movement clear.

There really hasn't been that much movement on that. I have a number of individual complaints that we're now investigating, which I can't really talk about now because they're ongoing, but there are issues now where it isn't really clear in terms of what is the appropriate behaviour for a public servant and what is the appropriate behaviour of the political side of our government. In terms of those individual complaints, I'm hoping that I'll have some of those investigations wrapped up so that we can draw those to a conclusion.

I do believe there has to be more discussion on this. I do believe that we have to start articulating what that line is. There is now an effort to review the values and ethics code for the public service. My input on it is that it has not been clear enough. Also, it hasn't been clear enough in terms of what is expected as post-employment, so what are the cooling-off expectations? If you go from public service to political activity, what is the expectation on cooling off? If you're political and if you win a competition, you can go right away.

We have to have those discussions. I don't have clear answers, but we are, as I say, doing a number of individual investigations. I hope to have that all wrapped up for my next annual report.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I really appreciate the thoroughness and frankness of your answer. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Colleagues, again, I'll just say I'm sorry we haven't been able to squeeze all these questions and answers into a five-minute round yet.

Anyway, I'll go to Mr. Anders, for another five minutes.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'll be passing whatever time I have left on to my colleague, Mr. Warkentin.

You made a comment in your opening remarks about the federal service being the largest employer in Canada. When you make that comment, do you have something to put it in relation to--for example, other levels of government, say the Province of Ontario being the largest, or other private sector employers, maybe the top five or top ten, who's number two, that type of thing?

[Maria Barrados]

That's a good question, and I don't really know it off the top of my head, but we can provide that information to the committee.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

That was my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much.

Probably that question is one of the reasons that it's so difficult to get a handle on the management of this huge enterprise, and we appreciate your challenges.

I'm going to move a little bit out of the classification creep issue, but move into the whole issue of managing movement within the civil service, period.

I recognize that with this new appointment of the chief human resources officer, you and her have some borderline issues and you have some complementary responsibilities. But in terms of getting to the bottom of the fact that there is no mechanism for monitoring or controlling classifications—I understand that it is now the chief human resources officer's responsibility to get a handle on this—what responsibilities or what involvement might you have on this particular issue?