Government Operations Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Maria Barrados]

The way the current legislation is structured, it's very clear that the Public Service Commission does staffing, assessment related to staffing, and non-partisanship. That's our ambit. Obviously, when you're dealing with staffing issues, you staff into a job, so you run into some of the classification issues. If we have a problem with how an organization is managed, we run into some of the classification issues. And over time we probably have developed some of the better analytic capacity in the system.

Having said all that, though, it's the CHRO who is clearly responsible for classification. In fact, I do talk with her and I meet with her. We at the commission are certainly prepared to work collaboratively with her, in partnership with her. So if there is some way we can support her, we would be prepared to do that. I believe she has to take the lead. In the past, the Public Service Commission actually did the audits, in the 1980s, but that was a request on the part of the employer to ask the Public Service Commission to do that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

In terms of this and branching out a little, the movement of classifications obviously contributed to the 42% of the core public service that moved within the last year. There are a number of different reasons for that movement, obviously, with the retirement rate. Do you foresee any challenges to moving forward in the next five years?

I'm hopeful that we're going to do a review in this committee on the retirement rates and the possibility of some challenges down the road as we try to replace the retiring workforce. There are obviously increases every year in the public service as well. As the population grows, we have two challenges to increasing the population of the workforce. Have you identified any challenges to moving forward?

I know that some private sector people have raised an alarm or concern about the impending retirement rate. Do you have any concerns on any specific job category or the different classifications of the workforce?

[Maria Barrados]

Yes. I would have to say that the public service retirement rates and departure rates are fairly modest overall compared to other private sector organizations. Our overall departure rate is running at about 4%. It's fairly low compared to private sector organizations, which tend to run at 15% or 20%.

Our issue is really with the executive group. People come into the public service and enter at the bottom. They spend their entire careers in the public service and retire at the end of their careers. Of course, they are moving up, with 10% going into the executive group. A large number of people who are moving on are leaders in the public service. We're now seeing movement. They're the ones who have the knowledge. You're looking for continuity and leadership. There is an issue in terms of how we'll get new leaders. The entire renewal agenda is very much a preoccupation of the clerk.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That's my challenge. I would leave it with you that we're going to try to get a handle on this. We could perhaps have a discussion at some point in terms of what we might find.

My concern is that if there is an impending retirement bubble in the private sector, it could have an additional impact on the public sector. If all of a sudden there're a large number of job openings for qualified and experienced people in the private sector, it could possibly draw some of our public service people. It hasn't been a huge problem in the past, but there is that possibility.

I have a theory. My new theory is that we may not see a large number of people retire within the next number of years. I've spoken to a number of public servants who had said they intended to retire within the next two years, but they will now depart within the next four years because their stock portfolios have dropped so significantly. They're going to wait for that to possibly recover and they're going to work to add to those funds.

However, if that does in fact happen, we may create a larger bubble in the public service, because as soon as they re-establish their private funds, other colleagues will have done the same thing. I am concerned about that day, because the private sector folks are in the same demographic and the same situation. It will be interesting, if anybody is looking at that scenario.

[Maria Barrados]

Quite a bit of work is being done on that. In fact, retirements are going on now in the public service. It's not as though we're waiting for it to happen. It's happening now. It was happening last year, it's happening this year, and it will probably peak in 2013. I've seen different estimates, but it will be around that time, whereas it's actually coming later in the private sector.

In the public service, we've seen that people are retiring earlier, which we've not seen in the private sector. They are retiring at the ages of 57 or 59, because of the incentives in the public service pension system, which is a very attractive system. They retire before the age of 60, whereas they stay longer in the private sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Warkentin for updating us on his continuing search for silver linings in the recession.

Madame Bourgeois, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Barrados, you are responsible for protecting the integrity of the staffing process. From time to time, I think, and depending on the mandate you receive from our committee, you can conduct audits and investigations to confirm the effectiveness of the staffing system. At this time, more and more private firms that are left to manage the various sectors, whether dealing with purchasing or staff recruitment, as is the case here. As I said earlier, some articles report that there about 140 private companies whose work consists of recruiting staff. That constitutes an enormous cost and it is constantly increasing. I have before me the characteristics of the public service workforce. There are contracts for temporary help and contracts for casual employment. In both cases, section 30 of the PSEA, which stipulates that appointments must be made on the basis of merit, does not apply, which means that there is no guarantee that these people are entitled to work in the position they do: there are not necessarily any official language requirements; a security clearance is not necessarily conducted; and these people do not have to swear an oath, as all public service employees must do. Thus, these four elements do not apply in terms of the integrity of the staffing process, if I am not mistaken. That is very serious.

Also, I think that people who work in temporary service contracts or as casual employees can get caught in a trap in the sense that, not only do they not have job security, but as my colleague said, a certain employment sector might have an unhealthy work environment. It is also possible that hiring a temporary employee could provoke an unhealthy work environment. A few years ago, I introduced a bill to address psychological harassment in the workplace. In several departments, these kinds of situations arise because, when an employee arrives through the back door and works in a position that he or she is not qualified for, people do not know how to remove that person and this could result in potentially unacceptable actions.

Lastly, Ms. Barrados, 80% of indeterminate jobs are apparently filled by employees who previously worked in term positions. Once again, that does not correspond in any way to your mission, vision and mandate. You also said you are very concerned. You find the situation worrisome, since you have “quantified a pattern of recruitment through the temporary workforce.” You said you are “preoccupied with the heavy reliance on building a permanent workforce through hiring temporary workers”.

Mr. Chair, considering all those factors, I would like to move a motion that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates may ask Ms. Barrados to conduct a study, to take a closer look at the consequences of all the factors I mentioned. Accordingly, we could: first, help her with the excellent work she is already doing; second, have a clear picture of what is going on within the federal public service; and third, examine the costs. It is costing the Canadian government $55 million more.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

This was 15 seconds short of a five-minute question. There's no need for Madam Barrados to reply. It was clearly a preamble to her indicating she was going to propose a motion at a subsequent meeting.

Thank you for that.

I now look to Mr. Martin for five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's fine, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. This will give me an opportunity to ask two questions.

Are there questions from the government side?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

You go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

On this issue of visible minority hiring, we've had occasion to look at two separate reports—three, if we include the Public Service Commission report. One is the report of the Canada Public Service Agency tabled recently by the Treasury Board president. For reasons that weren't really explained, two years were squeezed into one report. In other words, the report from the prior year was delayed, so there are two years. The report on employment equity in the public service in Canada was 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.

There is a second report, which has been referred to here, from the Clerk of the Privy Council, Kevin Lynch. We're all familiar with that one. Both these reports are required by statute, as is your annual report. So now we have three reports coming in. The odd thing is that, on the visible minority statistics, the data did not coincide. And I'm absolutely not alleging any bad faith here at all. You have two different organizations, maybe three, generating data different ways.

But the most important statistic I can find here, Madam Barrados, on this issue comes in the report of Kevin Lynch, where, on the matter of visible minority presence, the numbers fall quite short of market availability. Now, if you are correct, the number of visible minorities in the public service is understated, and that may address part of the problem. There is another piece of data, on page 24 of the English version of the same report, that shows a rather heightened level of visible minority hiring, quite significant. This is the 17.3% figure versus 12.4% market availability. That's significant.

So I don't quite understand. We've got data coming left, right, and sideways. Who should the committee be looking to for a resolution of the data problem, and who's got to carry the can on the missed targets?

Just so all members will relate to this, my particular constituency is about 80% visible minority. They actually really do care about this.

[Maria Barrados]

There's a piece of legislation, the employment equity legislation, that divides the responsibility. So the responsibility for hiring of the employment equity groups and identifying barriers and obstacles and removing the barriers and obstacles is with the Public Service Commission. The responsibility for other programs and supports—development programs, training programs, workplace—that is with the employer. So it's the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency in the past and now the chief human resources officer. It's not a great answer, but it's a divided responsibility.

If I can just make a quick try to deal with the numbers issue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

It has to be quick.

[Maria Barrados]

I'll try to be fast.

The report you're referring to that was tabled is dealing with the numbers I'm having difficulty with, and these are these self-identification numbers that I think are not very robust. So that is entirely based on those numbers.

The clerk's report includes the numbers I was talking about, the higher intake number, but it also includes the number of what the population is in the absence of any other number. As I had said before, what I now realize is that we have been underestimating the flow in, but I'm not sure how good my number is of what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. You explained that very adequately in the answer to a previous question. I suppose I want to hear who we look to from Parliament to fix both the process and the accountability for the final result. Is it the chief human resources officer, or is it you, or is it a government minister?

[Maria Barrados]

It's both of us. And it's both of us because of the legislation. It's the chief human resources officer and the President of the Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay, that's great. I think that does answer my question quite well. Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin has a question.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I thank you for coming this morning.

There are probably going to be some follow-up questions as we undertake these studies, and I'm wondering if you would be happy to come at another time.

I should consult with my committee colleagues first, but I certainly believe that we, as a committee, would desire some definitive numbers when it comes the classification creep and a number of other things.

I'm certain you will have to work in consultation with the chief human resources officer now that there is a sharing.... I understand she is responsible to the clerk, but you are responsible to us, so I'm not certain how that plays out. I'm not certain if we can ask you to be involved in some of this information collection for us or if it's better to ask her.

Maybe you can give us some direction on that particular issue. Certainly I think you have the corporate memory. Your organization has been in place much longer than the new organization and her responsibilities. Although she's highly qualified, I'm not certain she has all of the information if we're looking for it right now.

I don't know if you can offer any direction on that as we, as a committee, look for answers to some of these issues that I'm hoping we look at in the next little while.

[Maria Barrados]

I'm always happy to come to the committee. I try to serve the best I can, within my mandate. I am a statutory creature, who has enormous power and discretion, but in a limited area.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Right.

[Maria Barrados]

In terms of your question of how best to ask for information, probably the best way is to ask both of us. If you ask both of us, we obviously will consult with one another.

With the chief human resources officer, as part of government, any of her responses to Parliament go through a government process. My responses go through my own organization.

I try to get the best information I can. So by asking both of us, we would consult with one another, obviously. I would tell the committee if I felt I really was out of my mandate.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate your coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. Well, we've done a good job.

Thank you very much, witnesses, for coming. You're all free to withdraw at this point. The committee will continue in session as we take up some business matters.

Thank you again, very much.

Colleagues--

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Can I move my motion first? Is that okay?