Evidence of meeting #5 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was system.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I appreciate that it's difficult, especially as I know there's hesitancy amongst some groups to self-identify, or they may identify, but wrongly. I appreciate that.
We're thankful for that report. I'm pleased to hear that it's looking as though we're doing better than we may have thought a year ago.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I'm going to piggyback on the issue raised by Mr. Warkentin.
About 80% of the people I represent are visible minorities: you're looking at somebody who, in his practical day-to-day life, is a visible minority. Almost every one of those people are looking for equity, representation, and opportunity for themselves and their kids.
Without the statistical data to show the progress—and I know there's been progress made—I am going to feel left out on their behalf. So I encourage you to get some statistical data back into publication, so that I and we can at least be seen to be monitoring, if not actually monitoring, and seeing the progress that's supposed to be there. It really is pretty important for some parts of the country. I don't underestimate the other representational challenges that the Public Service Commission has in other categories—people with disabilities, aboriginal Canadians, etc.—but I'm just short of hammering down on it and saying this is a must.
There must be a system. The fact that you're having difficulty generating one that seems to be reliable is interesting, but at the end of the day, I have to encourage you to get something back into the system really quickly. Hopefully, for your next annual report there will be something there, and if there isn't, I'm sure there will be questions about it.
Unless you want to comment, I'll leave it. I may have another question or two later. I'll leave it to you.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
Can I just make a quick comment?
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
I very much welcome the interest of this committee in this issue. It will help me bring the other people to the table, because we have to get a consensus on the number.
You may be interested to know that when we look at the application rates, members of visible minority groups apply much more to government jobs. They have a greater interest in coming to work for the government.
Liberal
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Barrados, I am very happy to hear your comments today. I did not know you, and I have been asking myself some important questions for some time now.
Now then, I am going to put an important question to you as a francophone and as a woman. I would like you to answer it as a woman.
According to recently published figures, in 70% to 80% of cases, vacant positions in the federal public service are staffed with term employees. Part-time employees do not seem to have the same benefits as full-time employees.
First, are you concerned about whether or not the Official Languages Act is applied when part-time employees are hired? Second, since those part-time employees are often women, is employment equity maintained? Third, do you have a plan whereby those part-time employees can one day move up to full-time positions, since they will already have had some training? Finally, might we have a copy of that plan?
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
Have I understood your question correctly? You did mention part-time employees.
Bloc
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
You've asked many questions.
As I said, casual employee are not subject to the Act. That decision was made to give the system some flexibility. With regard to term employees—and these can also be part-time employees— all legislative requirements must be met. There are various categories of employees.
In our view, the provisions of the Official Languages Act apply. Public servants must provide services and ensure supervision in both official languages. I believe, however, that this requirement does not apply to part-time employees.
The PSC has an obligation to people hired under the Act, and that does not include casual employees. For casual positions, we follow requirements relating to language level, and we administer the tests.
As for the situation of women, statistics show that overall, we are now hiring more women than men in the public service. We have no training plan in place that would allow us to provide opportunities for people recruited as term or casual employees. That does concern me somewhat. I would like to see a hiring process that truly allows us to recruit talent, and that wasn't the case for the current group of people hired as casual employees.
Donald may be able to add something.
Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada
I would just like to clarify some terms. By “casual employee” we mean someone who occupies a position for a period of 90 days. These employees are not appointed under the Act.
There are term positions that could be confused with temporary positions. With term positions, employment ends on a specific date. These are full-time jobs that are not indeterminate.
There are also temporary employment agencies that we use when we need to hire an assistant for three weeks, for example, but have no time to go through the whole process. We place a call to a temporary employee agency, and they send someone to fill the position. However, the person hired this way is not a public servant and does not fall into one of these other categories.
That is why we need to make a distinction between the various kinds of employees that are hired.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
They could be hired for three months, for example. At Statistics Canada, they are a fair number of people in that situation.
Could we determine whether employment equity requirements are being met, and whether the Official Languages Act is being properly applied?
Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada
When bilingualism is required for a given position, then that requirement is respected. Otherwise, the candidate cannot be appointed unless the appointment is what we call non-imperative, and in those cases, the candidate has a certain amount of time to meet the requirement. Obviously, if the job is only for three months, the candidate will not get any training. The employer is responsible for specific term positions that are excluded. For example, at Statistics Canada, there is a clear timeframe for census activities. We know that at certain times, there will be no jobs available.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Forgive me, but I wasn't just talking about the census. I was talking about employees considered as regulars at Statistics Canada, but who in fact are temporary employees hired on a three-months basis. Their contracts run for three months. Every three months, they sign a new contract, but they are regular employees. Forgive me, this might be a detail, but it is an important detail for them.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
Those are not casual employees—
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
—because casual employees are entitled to one contract every year, for a three-month period. It is a different situation if there is a stoppage followed by another contract. These people are occupying term positions. They must meet the requirements of their positions.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
But you did not answer my question about job equity for women. You do not care to venture an answer?
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
This is a difficult question for me. I have often wondered why we did not have more men. Though I do not have a good answer to give you, I am nonetheless very concerned about this equity issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Merci.
I am going to put three quick questions to you.
The first one is on the issue of turnover. Given that the postwar generation has already started to retire in increasing numbers and to hit the maximum pension time, even though they haven't hit 65, is it possible that the leading edge of that generation retiring--which you've said is coming, big time--is actually one of the causes of both the higher turnover and the higher rate of hiring indeterminates?
In other words, the impending departures, and the departures, of this generation are causing departments to reach out and bring more people in to get ready for the retirements. Is that generational thing a statistical factor in the turnover rate and the hiring rate, which we've noticed is significant?
Secondly, we all know about the ways in which one can overclassify a civil service position. Is there any mechanism out there that ratchets down the overclassification when it occurs? You could get a virus in some department where they start overclassifying for all kinds of different reasons. Is there an audit function or something that would ratchet down that overclassification? Once the overclassification's there, it's there indefinitely. The taxpayer pays the freight.
Lastly, could you identify up to three issues where you would like the support or recognition of this committee and/or the House of Commons as you go about your work? Just identify up to three issues where you feel you need the support of the committee and/or the House of Commons.
President, Public Service Commission of Canada
I'll try to deal with your questions quickly.
Is the phenomenon of turnover a function of the retirements? The answer is yes. We are right in it; it's not a matter of coming retirements. Some of the groups have actually had large numbers of people retiring already. With some groups, you see the wave coming. There are different estimates. It depends on how people make individual decisions, but we'll be out of it by 2012 or 2014. So you're absolutely correct that we're in it now. My concern is that the consequence of the departures has encouraged this huge turn in the system and that's what has to be managed.
Your second question is about how we can ratchet down the classification creep. This is not an area that is the responsibility of the commission. This is the employer's responsibility. However, any manager can reorganize and reclassify the jobs. You do have to protect the levels of the people who are in the jobs--they would be red circled--but it is possible.... There is a difficulty with the classification system--and this comes from my auditor general days. There have been some major attempts at reforming the system and they were not carried through--a universal classification system--and then the approach has been more of a modular one, which means that in some parts of the system there's a revised standard, while in other parts of the system there is not a good standard, so it is not a very robust system.
The third area that you asked about is what this committee can do for me. The Public Service Commission was established 100 years ago to be at arm's length from the ministers. That means that I don't have a go-to minister; I don't have a way into any of the formal processes. I'm much more on the outside. I'm nominated by Parliament; my boss is Parliament; I can only be fired by Parliament. It's pretty clear who my boss is, so I do need the support and the attention of the committee.
I would say that there are three areas that are really important to me at this moment . One is my estimates. As we are going through budget reviews, we have gone through the horizontal review and we have taken our share of cuts, so that when I have the opportunity to discuss my estimates, there is a satisfaction that we are in a position to continue to carry out our work. It also gives me a forum to raise any issues I may have in terms of the budget process.
The second thing that is very important to me is that this committee continues to take an interest in the work of my office. I find today's discussion very gratifying because we have been given a very unique responsibility. We have an executive authority, but we have the independence of the Auditor General. So we have order powers, corrective powers, and executive powers, but we have great independence. There has to be an oversight of our work. I think my staff and I are very responsible, but I think the committee always has to be on the alert that we may not be doing quite what Parliament wants. The general interest in our work and looking for us to input into your work is extremely important.
The one issue in which I may need immediate attention from the committee is if I'm not making progress in getting this visible minority number down. We really can't work in an environment where we have this incredible miscommunication about the numbers. This may involve calling different players and having the committee provide some direction and guidance.
I know you asked for three, but I'm going to sneak in a fourth because it's not immediate. The statutory review of the legislation is supposed to be five years after it came into force. That is December 2010, which means we are beginning to work on that statutory review. If the committee is interested at some point—it could be in the context of some of the others—to have some discussion about what work we are beginning to do to prepare for the statutory review, that would be most welcome, but it is not one of those immediate things. It's a little longer term.