Government Operations Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Great.

My question goes to Ms. Robinson.

Federal institutions were supposed to report on the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, a transition program for the commission, by March 31, 2013 at the latest. Have you noticed any problems in applying this order from the information that was submitted by federal institutions?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you for the question.

As the honourable member mentioned, we now have a degree of flexibility for people who were affected involuntarily and who did not at that time have the necessary language level to be transferred to an available position. We put that flexibility in place.

We are monitoring the situation. I think that Ms. Laurendeau will be able to give you the figures on the number of people who took advantage of the option. She will also be able to explain the oversight that we have put in place to make sure that, in 12 months, everyone was going to fulfill their obligations.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The take-up was not out of line. We had about 200 requests in connection with position changes. We are now compiling the data for the first year in which the order was used. Up to now, our checking shows that we have no major problems. Of course, we will compile the data at the end of the year. It will be part of our annual report.

The provision is in place until 2015. We will make sure that the people who take advantage of it fulfill all the requirements of the position in the year following their reassignment.

To this point, we have not seen any particular problems.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madam Laurendeau.

Thank you, Mathieu.

Next, for the Conservatives, Bernard Trottier.

If we can, I'd like to get a little bit of time in for the Liberals, who've been waiting patiently as well. That'll conclude things.

Could we say three or four minutes for you, Bernard, and then two minutes for Mr. McCallum?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

That would be fine, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here.

Mr. Dion, I feel that your commission is doing essential work, not only for Parliament, but for the entire public service.

My question deals with your report on plans and priorities. I see a discrepancy between planned expanses and human resources. I see a reduction in costs. They are estimated at $5.9 million in 2013-14, at $5.4 million in 2014-15 and again at $5.4 million in 2015-16. However, the number of full-time equivalents remains at 32.

Can you explain that discrepancy? Why is there no change in the staffing level in your office?

[Mario Dion]

Thank you for the question.

If you were to look at previous versions of the report on plans and priorities, you would see 43 and 45, instead of the 32 you are reading now. The figure of 32 is the number of people we are able to pay in coming years. That is the reason. We have reduced our objectives. We looked at the classifications as well. We tend to use better classified positions, but fewer of them, than my predecessor had planned to use. We have 28 employees today. We would have the means to pay 34, if I needed that many. The long-term ceiling is 32.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

In your remarks, you said that your office has been in existence since 2007 and that it was created after the passage of the Federal Accountability Act.

What did departments do before your office existed? How were investigations done?

[Mario Dion]

Thank you for the question.

An office had existed since 2001 as part of the Treasury Board Secretariat. It dealt with integrity, but it had not been created by an act. That is the first distinction. It had no powers under any legislation. It was simply Treasury Board policy. It was the very first beginnings of what we are doing at the moment, if you will.

The act enshrined and strengthened the power and gave it to us. We have all the powers provided by the Inquiries Act, such as the power to issue subpoenas, for example, if someone refuses to come and see us. Mr. Keyserlingk, who was the person in charge at the Treasury Board Secretariat, did not have that at all.

Something was being done previously, but it was more informal, more administrative, and much less legally based.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Is it equally in force in the departments? Is it informal? Is there a well-defined process? If so, is the present commissioner's office more effective than what existed beforehand?

[Mario Dion]

I would say that it is stronger. Maybe it is more effective, because we learn as we go along and we improve the effectiveness. There is no doubt that it is stronger.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a final question for Ms. Robinson.

I want to understand the longer-term trends in your spending. In your report on plans and priorities, I see a very healthy trend, if you're looking at cost reduction—from $107 million in 2009-10, down to $106 million in 2011-12, to $90 million in 2013-14, and all the way down to $85 million for 2015-16. It's a steady downward trend.

I see a lot of language in your report on plans and priorities that suggests a culture of continual improvement. I see things such as learning from best practices and streamlining certain unnecessary processes.

Could you describe the leadership that's in place? It's a tribute to you and other people who lead your organization. What kinds of things are you doing to constantly look at cost reductions?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you very much for the question.

I would give the credit for this to my predecessor, Maria Barrados, who, in looking at the use of technology, put in place a number of important tools. For example, we now use unsupervised Internet testing so Canadians can apply for many of the jobs from their homes. That not only improves access for Canadians but also takes us away from an environment where we used to fill gymnasiums full of people doing pen and paper tests.

The other thing I'd like to mention, because it's also very important from a security perspective, is that we've also moved to computer-generated tests for our testing. We are starting with our language testing. We use databanks of questions and the computer will generate unique tests every time, so it increases efficiencies and improves the security of our tests. For example, we have had some problems in the past with some of our language tests being compromised. With this new approach, each time someone takes a test, the test will be unique.

My predecessor put a plan in place several years ago, using those kinds of things, using technology, and it's now coming to fruition.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Bernard.

We have a couple of minutes at the end of the meeting if John McCallum would like to comment.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Monsieur Dion, I think you said that the target time for an investigation is one year. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

Mr. Chairman, that's correct. It's one year from the launch of the investigation.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Returning to that 60% number in your report on plans and priorities, I guess that means the target is that 60% of the investigations would be completed within the year.

[Mario Dion]

Mr. Chairman, in the next version of this document, we will remodel the manner. The target will be 100% at one year, barring, of course, exceptional circumstances to do with vast complexity or something completely unforeseen at this point.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, I would have thought that from the point of view of a public servant who blows the whistle, remaining in his or her current job might be rather unpleasant. If it's going to take a year, if after blowing the whistle the person has to stay there a whole year before the investigation is complete, I would think that length of time would be a significant barrier to complaining. It would seem to me to be much better if you could get the investigation done in three months or six months. That would reduce that major barrier, would it not?

[Mario Dion]

Of course it would. Our aim is to complete the investigation as quickly as possible. The one year is a ceiling. It's not an objective, no more than one year. Of course we do complete investigations sometimes within eight weeks, six weeks. The commitment is to never take more than one year. It's not the commitment to an average. It's the commitment in each case to never take more than one year.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

My point is it might be worth having additional resources so you could bring that amount of time down and thereby encourage more people to apply.

[Mario Dion]

Mr. Chair, if the government decides to give us more resources, we will, of course, plan to use them well, in conjunction with the objectives of the statute, obviously.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you. That's a good answer, and a good point to close on.

Thank you very much, Monsieur Dion, for your testimony.

Thank you, Ms. Robinson. That's very helpful and very interesting.

We're going to suspend the meeting briefly and go in camera for some planning. Please leave by the back door because of the state visit and protocol going on, and anybody who shouldn't be present for an in camera meeting, please excuse yourself now.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]