Government Operations Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Members, we are studying today the Public Service Commission's 2008-09 audit report. We have before us Madam Barrados, who is the president of the Public Service Commission; Mr. Donald Lemaire, senior vice-president, policy branch; and Monsieur Jean Ste-Marie, acting vice-president, audit and data services.

Before we commence with Madam Barrados' speech, I'd like to make a suggestion to committee members. Over the past two meetings, we have had some concerns about time and fairness and so on. The clerk is responsible for managing the time. If you distract the clerk and he's away from here, I don't have control over the time clock, so if anyone has any urgent issues that they want to see the clerk for, please come to this side so that at least somebody is managing the clock.

If you have questions for the clerk or for the analyst, I'd appreciate it if you would come here. Just raise your hand and come over and see them so that we will not have any issues around time management. We will keep track of the time that everyone utilizes because sometimes the witnesses take a little longer to wrap up.

With that, I'd like Madam Barrados to give us her opening remarks.

[Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and honourable members of the Committee.

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the work of the Public Service Commission — the PSC —, more specifically the " 2008-2009 Public Service Commission Annual Report " and five audit reports, all of which were tabled in Parliament on October 9.

The annual report covers the third year of operation under the Public Service Employment Act, or PSEA. In 2008-2009, the PSEA applied to 82 organizations representing more than 208,000 public servants, casual employees and students. We have seen steady growth in those organizations.

We haev also seen a high level of hiring and staffing activity. The high rate is attributable to growth in the Public Service, retirements and a great deal of internal movement.

We concluded from the various monitoring exercises we carried out in 2008-2009 that the fundamental values of merit and impartiality are generally respected across the Public Service.

Still, the PSC is concerned about significant new signs that we need to be more vigilant in order to ensure that in the years ahead, Canadians will continue to be served by a Public Service that is impartial and merit-based.

One of the main expectations regarding the PSEA was a reduction in staffing times. However, we have not realized the expected gains in terms of how fast advertised processes to staff permanent positions are completed. Inefficient staffing has a direct impact on the delivery of quality programs and services to Canadians and encourages managers to hire casual and temporary staff for permanent positions.

It currently takes an average of 23.5 weeks to staff a position. That number can easily be reduced by 30% in the current system if human resources management as a whole is improved.

The PSC shares the concerns raised by the members of your committee regarding the inapporpriate use of temporary workers to fill permanent Public Service positions on a long-term basis. We are moving forward on a study to look at the issue and determine how these practices might circumvent the requirements of the PSEA.

I would now like to turn to employment equity.

We are making progress in the appointment rate of visible minorities into the public service through advertised positions, reaching 18.8% in 2008-09. This rate is greater than the workforce availability of visible minorities. The same holds true for women and aboriginal peoples. However, the public service is not sufficiently attracting persons with disabilities, and their recruitment rate continues to be lower than their workforce availability.

This year the PSC observed new challenges with respect to protecting the value of non-partisanship. We are beginning to see more complex cases that, while individually appropriate, may undermine the overall perception of the political impartiality of the public service. Thousands of new recruits are entering the public service for the first time, and the use of social media technology blurs the line between public and private lives. We believe that increased efforts are required to foster a better understanding of non-partisanship as a core public service value.

Now I will turn to the findings of our recent audits. This year, based on our assessment of risk, we examined five organizations. We undertake our audits as part of our responsibility in our delegated staffing system to identify actions that are required to improve the management of staffing.

Based on our findings as well as the responsiveness of each organization to our recommendations, we have taken the measures that follow.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator has put corrective measures in place, and we have removed all restrictions on their appointment authorities.

The Canada Border Services Agency has already taken a number of initiatives, and they are moving forward. We have asked for detailed plans and will conduct a follow-up audit in two years.

At both Health Canada and Infrastructure Canada, senior management moved quickly to undertake corrective actions in response to our audits and have committed to strengthening their human resources management. They are also required to provide additional reporting to make sure that progress is maintained.

At the Immigration and Refugee Board, we found preferential treatment in staffing processes for some executive appointments and former Governor in Council--GIC--appointees. GICs are appointed by ministers, while public servants are appointed by the PSC, which is independent from ministerial direction. Senior management at IRB disagreed with some of our findings. We will continue to do work at the IRB over the course of the next year.

The PSC will investigate any internal appointment process resulting from the audit, and upon receipt of the investigation report, the IRB has agreed to implement corrective measures. As we deem necessary, the PSC will continue to audit appointments made by the IRB, and the IRB will report to the commission on the implementation of the recommendations in the audit report within six months.

l would now like to update the committee on our progress with respect to our audit concerning the unauthorized possession and use of the PSC's second-language evaluation test. We are implementing the recommendations of this audit, and we have reviewed overall test security and taken appropriate measures.

The 115 students who took the tests following their Nec Plus Ultra training have been given two years in which to be re-tested by the PSC. This re-testing is now under way. The PSC also agreed to review the cases of those students who wanted to bring forward any exceptional circumstances. To date, the PSC has resolved 26 cases.

Issues have been raised by NPU and Ms. Madeleine Rundle's new legal counsel about the manner in which the PSC has treated NPU, about the content of the audit report, and about how the PSC is dealing with public servants who attended NPU for language training. The issues raised reflect an inaccurate interpretation of the facts. l have asked the Department of Justice to commence legal proceedings to recover the costs resulting from this situation.

We are also moving forward with our preparation for the five-year review of the PSEA. We are taking stock of the implementation of the act in terms of whether it has been implemented as intended and whether it equips the PSC and others to protect merit and non-partisanship in the years ahead.

It is time to consider succession planning for the current commission. I would like to see two new commissioners appointed to start staggering appointments and transition to the new commission.

Finally, Parliament has given the Public Service Commission, as an independent agency, a specific mandate to protect the values of merit and impartiality as pillars of a professional and impartial public service. We are committed to fulfilling that important mandate on behalf of Parliament and all Canadians.

Thank you. I would now be glad to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Madam Barrados.

I'd like to thank Madam Barrados for hosting a social evening yesterday. Those of us who attended benefited a lot from discussions with her.

I'd like to remind the committee that 5:15 p.m. is the time at which we will cut off everything, including the closing remarks for Madam Barrados, because we have committee business.

With that, to begin the eight-minute rounds, we will have Ms. Martha Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to welcome the witnesses.

I'm sorry I was not able to join you at the dinner last night, but I had another commitment. I understand that it was very enjoyable and I look forward to the next opportunity.

I appreciate your opening statement, Madam Barrados, but there's a somewhat different issue I'd like to focus on today, and that's the whole question of what seems to be a very significant creep of partisanship into the public service. I will just quote from a couple of sections that you included in your report itself, the large report that was tabled in the House.

You said: “Non-partisanship is a core value by which public servants are appointed without political influence...”; the commission's mandate is “to protect...non-partisanship in the federal public service...”; and “...non-partisanship is a core value of the public service and that appointments must be free from political influence”.

You also said in the report: “A permanent, professional and non-partisan public service is vital to Canada's system of democracy” and that “Canadians need to be confident that public servants administer, and are perceived as administering, programs and services in a professional and non-partisan manner”.

The Canadian Press learned and, importantly, disclosed that a key program to recruit, as they called it, “the cream of new graduates” suddenly wants to know the applicants' views on the government's economic action plan. Did you know about this new requirement to write an essay commenting on the government's action plan in the applications for these new applicants?

[Maria Barrados]

My understanding is that the program being referred to is the accelerated economist training program. It is a program that is operated by the commission, whereby applicants come in to the commission and are given one of our standardized tests. The standardized tests are standardized competency tests.

After that, candidates are referred to the departments, and the departments may ask further questions and do further examination to choose the candidates. I would not think it would be inappropriate to ask a candidate their views on a major government program, if you were looking for economists, in order to see their ability to analyze.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

My question was actually a little bit more blunt. It was about whether you knew about this requirement.

[Maria Barrados]

I did not. I read about it in the newspaper this morning.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Right. It may seem appropriate to ask somebody applying for a position that has economics as part of its profile, but there are a great number of questions about economics one can be asked that are not in fact related to a current government program which, unless somebody has had their head in the sand, has very clearly been a subject of not insignificant controversy over the last little while.

I will go back to that requirement that “public servants administer, and are perceived as administering, programs in a non-partisan manner”. With respect, right now, the perception in that request suggests a very strong partisan element.

So not having known about it, and given my concerns about the appearance, do you actually agree with the requirement, not that they be asked to comment on economics, but that they be asked to write a short essay specifically on this current government's economic action plan?

[Maria Barrados]

I don't know whether the story was accurate.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Assuming the story is accurate and that they've been asked to write an essay....

[Maria Barrados]

I will make sure--I've asked my staff, actually, to check--of the accuracy of the story. The Public Service Commission did not ask those questions and does not ask those detailed kinds of questions. We screen on competency, so we're looking for judgment, for communication skills. These are generic kinds of tests that we set up.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

The impression given here is that there's very much a request for a position on a particular and, as I said, clearly somewhat contentious policy. I feel bad about putting you on the spot, but if the Public Service Commission has ultimate responsibility for this all-important fact, but also the impression, of non-partisanship, then I think there's a disconnect here. I do ask, given that you are ultimately responsible, for some assurance that you're comfortable with this, because we're not.

[Maria Barrados]

I will commit to the committee that I will follow up and try to understand exactly what has occurred.

But as a general principle, when we go through screening to test those competencies and people qualify on the competencies, we're operating on a delegated model, and it is up to the departments to then do any further screening and examination.

I don't think it's illogical to ask about the major programs and economic considerations of the day. I would suggest that I would be more concerned about what the answer should be. If the question is posed and a good answer could be critical of the government's position, that's fine. If the answer is supposed to be only supportive--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With respect, what on earth is “a good answer”?

I'm moving into a second question here that relates to this. It is increasingly concerning that there's a subjectivity going on in the civil service that relates to an increased partisanship.

There are very concerning reports that senior public servants have raised and continue to raise concerns about the politicization of the bureaucracy. Quoted from another report is this: “trampling the...area between partisanship and policy”. More than one said they've “never seen anything so blatant as the current use of the office”, and in this case it was for self-promotion of the government. Another quote is from the reporter investigating it: “None would speak on the record...for fear of reprisals...”.

Madam Barrados, that's one of the most concerning aspects of this: that there would be fear of reprisal so that members of your public service are unwilling to address this and speak publicly. This is also your responsibility.

Certainly, we've heard from all sorts of people who have expressed increasing concern over the last while. These are people for whom you are responsible, in the service for which you are responsible. As in your report, this is fundamental to the democratic process of this government. What are you doing about this? Can you tell--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Can you wrap it up so that I can give half a minute for an answer?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

What is it that you are doing to address this increasing problem within your own public service?

[Maria Barrados]

I am concerned about non-partisanship in the public service, hence the emphasis I have put on it. I have also raised in the report issues about what non-partisanship means in today's public service. I'm not speaking about the government in power; I'm talking about government that relies on technologies and is operating in a different environment. So yes, I do very much have those concerns.

I do commit to you and the members of this committee that if I have a specific concern or allegation made to me, we investigate it and take corrective actions, and we have. I have a separate report that carries examples of this.

I can't deal with something vague. I do the best I can, given the Privacy Act, to protect the individuals who may come forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Madam Barrados.

Madam Bourgeois, huit minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Barrados. Welcome to the Committee. It is always a pleasure to see you here.

I want to congratulate you. You have done a lot of work. The documents can be heavy to carry. They are heavy in terms of weight, but also in terms of content.

I am going to pick up where my colleague left off. My understanding is that in the various departments where you went to check for compliance with the Public Service Employment Act, you realized that appointments were not being made on the basis of merit. At the Immigration and Refugee Board in particular, there is preferential treatment. Unadvertised appointment processes are common in almost every department and especially in the department responsible for infrastructures.

The merit principle was also not respected. At Health Canada, there are many cases of non-compliance with the Public Service Employment Act. There are irregularities in appointments and related decisions. There is also evidence that human resources plans are lacking in some places, are not very apporpriate, are not updated in other departments and finally that there is a lack of consistency in human resources plans in the Public Service. That is not a stellar performance, I have to tell you.

Fortunately, however, you are there and are capable of shedding light on what is happening. Your documents show that you have identified new challenges for protecting the value of impartiality. I would like to know what those challenges are. At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself, I would like to know what you are going to do to solve the problems.

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you for your comments about our work.

It's true. We have seen new challenges.

I plan to ask my colleague, Mr. Lemaire, to add his comments, because he is responsible for policy.

First, there is the question of interpretation of Part 7 of the Act, which deals with a non-partisan public service. Is it broad enough to address all of the concerns we might see? There are cases where it was impossible to tell if there would be a negative impact on the Public Service, but the definition in the Act leads to restrictions. That is the first challenge: interpretation of the current Act, especially if we are in the process of evaluating the Act. It provides an opportunity to make changes, if necessary.

Second, there is the new order with the advent of Facebook and technologies. People do not understand that information which used to be private is now public. That is another reality.

The third aspect stems from the Supreme Court decision stating that public servants can engage in political activities but the Public Service as a whole has to be respected. It's a qestion of balance. Where is that balance?

We have these challenges. We are currently setting up coordinating groups throughout the country with experts to obtain their input. We have to give our opinion, not just on staffing issues, but also on relations with ministers and deputy ministers. There are also relations between the people who work for a minister, the staff, and the Public Service. In one of our audits, we looked at Governor-in-Council appointees.

It's a big job, and at this point I do not have many good answers.

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

I want to get back to the issue of staffing. I know that over the past three years, you have worked very hard to help public servants acquire the proper staffing authority. When I read these documents, I get a sense that there have not been many substantial changes, that these people have not done much to apply what you showed them, what you asked them to do. I also get the impression, despite the fact that there is a Web site where people can register if they want to work in the Public Service, that a lot of jobs are still going to temporary, casual employees, people the mangers know.

For that reason, I think it is important to ask you if you believe the work you have done over the past three years has really been productive. Are public servants able to do staffing? Do they use the famous site that costs us millions of dollars to run and contains a directory of potential public servants? Finally, have you established a connection between the number of calls or names obtained through that site and the number of employees hired, who may be groupies brought in by the band?

[Maria Barrados]

The new Act has been in force for three full years now, and I think we have made progress. We have seen improvements in planning processes and policy frameworks. We have also found that the Deputy Minister is more involved in the human resources management process.

On the other hand, there are areas where we could make more headway. I have spoken at length about the staffing process, whch in my opinion is not necessary. It is due to a lack of attention on the part of managers. We have an electronic system in some locations, but to my mind, it is not being used enough. We have to make more of an effort to train people how to use the system.

Finally, I have the same concerns as you regarding the use of temporary staffing networks. Our study is under way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Monsieur Gourde for eight minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Madam President.

I am going to ask you two short questions and hand the rest of my time over to my colleague, Steven Blaney, because he has to leave.

Ms. Barrados the Public Service is currently facing enormous challenges. People are retiring in large numbers, there are many positions available internally, employees are changing positions and sectors. Sometimes people are appointed to a position but accept another one after eight months or a year. They learn the skills but do not get to use them for long.

Is the need to replace these people a serious problem?

[Maria Barrados]

Last year, we conducted a study of movement within the Public Service. I believe there is too much movement. The fact that so many people are retiring has consequences. There are promotions and other factors as well. I think the situation is going to get a bit better. We are now seeing a drop in the number of positions requiring a staffing process. I hope there will be a decrease in movement because movement hinders the work of the Public Service.