Government Operations Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Let's try to stick to your document, because otherwise we may go off in all different directions.

Among those whose first official language is French, 84% were bilingual at the time of their recruitment. If I go by your document, there is an extremely significant difference between Anglophones and Francophones as far as bilingualism is concerned. People might think that because of that, in the long run, Francophones appear to be favoured, that it is easier for them to move up in a bilingual system. However, on page 9 of your document, you state that the permanent start-up ratio for people whose first official language English was 31.3%, compared with 25% among Francophones. That does not look like a system that does much for Francophones in terms of career advancement.

The following page states:

Among bilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 3.6%. Among unilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 2.3%. The combined effect of first official language and bilingualism on career progression remained statistically significant for 49 out of the 62 groups and levels studied.

It seems that being bilingual or not makes no difference: in both cases, Francophones advance more slowly in their career than Anglophones.

Should we not conclude from all this that Canada's system of bilingualism, which in theory affirms the equality of the two languages, is in practice a denial of that equialty? We say there are two official languages: English and simultaneous translation. In principle, the two languages are equal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Monsieur Dorion, please wrap up.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Could it not be said that one language is actually more equal than the other?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Give a short response if you can, please.

[Maria Barrados]

I am going to ask my colleague to respond.

[Jean Ste-Marie, Acting Vice-President, Audit and Data Services, Public Service Commission of Canada]

That is exactly what the document says. You will note that the sample is over a period of 18 years, from 1990 to 2008. If you look only at today's numbers, you will see that they are different.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Are they in your report?

[Jean Ste-Marie]

There are in a table on page 29 of the annual report. The numbers are certainly higher. You have to look at the numbers in the study over 18 years. In the early 1990s, the results were probably different than they are today. That is what the table shows.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin, for five minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Barrados, for coming here this afternoon. We appreciate not only your attendance here but also our time last night. It was informative, and those of us who attended got good value for the time we spent together.

Today I'm going to follow up on the direction Ms. Martha Hall Findlay was moving in some time ago in terms of the non-partisanship of our civil servants. Last night we talked a little about the necessity of ensuring that at least the upper echelon within the civil service has a guard around how much partisan activity they undertake while still serving in that capacity.

Today I read something interesting. I was reading through Quorum and came across a story by Greg Weston, who cited a diplomat who has a Facebook page that mentioned certain political thoughts he has. He has unfortunately probably compromised his negotiating capacity through that Facebook page, as it relates to his responsibility within the foreign service.

I'm sure the advent of the Facebook page has really complicated your life, because it's one opportunity in which, although we think we're engaging in private conversations, we're in fact broadcasting a lot of personal information that may compromise our non-partisanship if we are trying to be non-partisan. Could you talk a little bit about the Facebook reality and how that challenge is changing the way you do your job?

I'd also ask that you talk about any situation in which you've had to speak to departments about making it clear as to the necessity of watching what people put on their Facebook pages as they enter certain levels within the public service.

[Maria Barrados]

We in fact have talked to departments. There was actually another case in the PCO. A young recruit who came into the PCO had a Facebook page.... This is in the context of a Supreme Court decision you'll remember, which said that public servants do have political rights and do have the right to express political views, but they must do it in such a way so as not to compromise the non-partisan nature of the public service.

So you have a young individual who has political views coming into the public service, and he tells the people who hire him. They tell him nothing. They say nothing to him. They don't caution him or warn him. He puts up his Facebook page. He makes all kinds of political statements. He sends it to a friend. The friend sends it to a friend, and that friend sends it to someone who is not a friend, and it becomes a big political issue. The individual was embarrassed beyond belief.

My criticism in this case was not so much of the young individual, the new recruit, but very much of the department. When they were bringing this person in and when he said he was politically active, they didn't take him aside to say, “Do you realize the kinds of restrictions you have in the public service?” They didn't say that he has rights, but that he must never exercise them in such a way that it will compromise the public service. At the end of the day, a public servant must be able to serve any political party, and the political party must have confidence in the public service.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Are you creating a guideline or any type of provision for the departments that relates to new media such as social networking sites and Facebook?

My sense is that every department is going to have to face some type of protocol that relates to these social networking sites, especially for those who are in more sensitive roles. Has that been something you have felt the necessity to undertake or that you have encouraged the departments to consider?

[Maria Barrados]

We are, actually. This process is under way. We do have an Internet site. We do have a network of people in the departments whom we speak to all the time, and we are updating our material.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that.

How much...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm going to move to my next time slot, after Mr. Anders' time slot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Do you want to pose a question and leave it, and then bring it to your next time slot?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

My question may take longer than 30 seconds, but thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's fine.

Then we will go to Madam Hall Findlay for five minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

There are two directions of conversation here. I understand, Madam Barrados, the concerns you have raised about partisanship in the public service that relate to public servants who want to participate or who do participate in political activity.

My concern is about those public servants who actually do not want to participate in partisan activity, but who, because of the pressures now being exerted upon them, somehow either feel obliged to participate in it or feel they are being subjected to it.

I was quite struck by your comment about the need for public servants to be seen as impartial by the people they work for because they need to be seen as being able to serve any political party. I understand why you said that, but it struck me, because my impression is that the public service is there to actually serve the Canadian public. I will go back to the earlier comment, quoted from your own report, 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”.

I really want to focus back--and again, not on those who want to participate in political activity and need to know where those lines are--on those who don't want to but are feeling pressured to participate in partisan activities and programs. We in this committee have had a very hard time getting information, particularly information on government spending. My concern is that public servants have a number of responsibilities to fulfill in their jobs in compliance with government policies and rules, not political ones. In some cases, such as that of accounting officers, the Accountability Act specifically provides that they're accountable to the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Commons.

Recently we were refused the participation of certain public servants without the presence of the minister in question. We actually asked the public servants to stay longer, but we were denied that opportunity. They granted us an extra 20 minutes or half an hour, but that was only if the minister also stayed.

We had a very hard time getting information and we continue to have a very hard time getting information. We had representatives from the PCO here just recently, as well as those from Treasury Board, and the overwhelming impression we have is that there's a significant level of discomfort.

To the extent that you have public servants who have an obligation to the Canadian public and to us in terms of our roles as parliamentarians and being on this committee, is that ultimately not putting them in a very difficult position? Does that not go back, ultimately, to your responsibility for them and for their jobs?

When you said earlier that you would look at corrective actions to deal with specific situations, what kind of corrective action can you actually engage in for a situation that appears to be increasingly politicized, with people who are either serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or appointed based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister? What kind of corrective action would you recommend given the concerns I've now raised?

[Maria Barrados]

It is a complicated area. By that, I don't mean to dodge all the issues that you've raised, which are important ones.

Public servants have an obligation and a duty to be loyal to their minister. That's the nature of this system.

So it would be inappropriate--and I'm speaking hypothetically--for a minister to ask a public servant to undertake partisan activity, and it is inappropriate for a public servant to undertake partisan activities unless there are certain circumstances that have gone through some kind of review and regulatory process. That's the grand theory. Then we have to get to the practical reality of a big system having to operate.

But it is a balance between a duty of loyalty to a minister and protecting the status of the non-partisan public service. It puts people like me in a very different position, because I don't have a duty of loyalty to a minister, which means that I have a different kind of role to play and am in a different position. I have a different kind--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Is your loyalty not ultimately to the Canadian public, then?

[Maria Barrados]

My duty of loyalty is absolutely to Parliament. You're the people--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Which represents the Canadian public.

[Maria Barrados]

That's right. You hire me--I can only be named with your support--and you can fire me, so I'm pretty clear on who my boss is.

The Public Service Commission is not responsible for the Governor in Council appointments, the order in council appointments. We are responsible for assistant deputy ministers and below.

If there is a specific case that we investigate--we need to have specific allegations and circumstances--we can take corrective measures that include removing the person from the public service.