Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2014

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Generally, and notwithstanding these two individuals, if someone were knowingly hired under a tainted process, as found by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner or by the Public Service Commission, should they still be given a pass to be rolled into the public service, or are actions being planned or undertaken at the moment to prevent such an occurrence in the future?

[Wayne Wouters]

Again, I'm not prepared to comment on individual cases. I will only say that overall, as I noted earlier, one of the fundamental values of the public service is our merit-based system, that when individuals come into the public service, of course we will ensure that it's non-partisan, that it's merit-based, and that there is good performance by every individual, which will be measured as we go forward.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

There is concern that this is not an isolated event but a serial event. There were clear political overtones, as noted not only by the Public Service commissioner but also by the Integrity Commissioner and by a Federal Court judge who reviewed some of the files in the P.E.I. case. The decision that was written clearly demonstrated that there were political overtones.

Can you assure this committee and parliamentarians that this is an isolated event, that this is not systemic under the direction of other ministers of this government, and that it is totally isolated to ACOA and ECBC? How can you assure us that is the case? Have you conducted investigations on staffing decisions at a senior level in other organizations?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

[Wayne Wouters]

I think, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, that the Public Service Commission concluded on the ACOA cases raised by the honourable member that the appointment process was free of political influence. So I think there is a distinction there between the report from the Public Service Commission and the one from the Office of the Public Service Integrity Commission.

Again, I can only comment that as we look at staffing and as we staff in the public service, I'm very comfortable that our staffing is merit-based and non-partisan, and that the case of Mr. Lynn is a very isolated case.

This has been, I think, the history of our institution. It separates our institution from many others in the world. At all levels, we appoint and we promote on the basis of merit and on the basis of performance. That has basically been the system since I've been in the public service. I'm very comfortable and confident that that is the system that is now in place.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Aspin, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I welcome both of you to our committee.

Unlike some of our honourable members opposite, I am positively encouraged by what's happening in the public service and certainly by the environment that has been created. Your Blueprint 2020 initiative seems to be a bottom-up initiative that is creating positive results. You're looking at technology, innovative practices, and people management, which are all very positive indeed.

Mr. Wouters, you mentioned that time flies and that you've almost completed your fifth year. I wonder if you could take the opportunity to outline some of the positive changes that have happened throughout your tenure as clerk, as well as some of the improvements that have been made in the public service to enhance the public service for Canadians over the last number of years.

[Wayne Wouters]

Well, thank you very much for the question.

I have to say it has been a fascinating five years for me as Clerk of the Privy Council. I think it is one of the best jobs in Canada, if not the best job in Canada, though nobody really knows me across the country, which is also a good thing, at least when I get out of Ottawa. It has been a fascinating time for me, and followed up by my time as Secretary to the Treasury Board, I've seen the world from the centre for a long period of time. I was a line deputy for many years

I guess I've focused a lot on how to ensure that the public service will continue to be relevant for many, many years to come. I am biased. I do believe we have one of the best, if not the best, public services in the world. But we need to continue to adapt, adjust, and modernize how we do our business in order for us to continue to be relevant, both to Canadians, and of course to the government.

You know, there are many areas. For example, one area I've talked a lot about is the service side and internal services. I guess another area that we're looking at very seriously is our overall policy advice, the advice we give to ministers every day—and for me, the Prime Minister. How do we do that in a world where we're so connected?

There are so many experts out there. We have think tanks in Canada. We have academics. We have many experts out there. As I often like to say, when I came to government, I kind of had a monopoly. I had the best data in Canada. We've always had great data, through StatsCan and other means. I had the expertise. I had a master's degree in economics, so I felt I was well qualified. Also, I had a monopoly, which was my minister.

Well, today you can do good policy work, develop the policy options, and present that to the minister. Then he or she can go home, get on the Internet, and find a study from Berkeley on the subject I briefed him on in the morning, and say, “Why didn't you think of this?” That is a real challenge for us as we look ahead. How do we begin to be more adapters and integrators of knowledge? And it's not only the knowledge that we have, because we will always develop policy, but we also have to be able to reach out to our think tanks, again, to be more collaborative, and use the web 2.0 tools to begin to integrate and connect the dots. We're doing that a lot more.

The one advantage we will always have as the public service is that regardless of the policy, we can put the Canadian context on it. We live in almost every community in this country. We understand Canada. Canada is our Canada. We know it. We can therefore take whatever public policy issue we have and whatever advice is out there, not only in Canada, but in best practices around the world—which we must do—then bring it back to the Canadian context and provide that advice. That is a really wonderful challenge for us.

I've often said in speeches that as I come to the end of my career in the public service, I wish I were just starting. I think it's an exciting time for Canada, and it's going to be a tremendously exciting time for the public service of Canada.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Aspin.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Do I have more time, Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I am sorry, but your time is up.

Ms. Day, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to express my sympathy to the people of Moncton, and especially to the RCMP members and their families who were affected by last night's terrible events. I hope that the situation will return to normal as soon as possible.

My questions are for Mr. Wouters.

We can see that the public service is feeling destabilized and insecure. Many public servants have received letters informing them that their job will be cut. This has led to panic. Others have received letters telling them to keep quiet, to avoid making comments or speaking to Canadians. For example, Sylvie Therrien was fired after speaking publicly about employment insurance.

Evaluations, expectations and performance evaluations have existed since the 1990s, probably under other names.

How can you say that everything is fine when this is clearly not the case and when the situation on the ground is completely different? Public servants are currently being told not to speak out and to keep quiet. Researchers are being told not to speak out and to keep quiet. The current regime does not look anything like what we can read in the Blueprint 2020 document. There is a double standard here.

I would like to hear your comments on this situation.

[Janice Charette]

Mr. Chair, the member has brought up several points. I can try to answer some of her questions.

Concerning the new performance management system, which I described earlier, it is true that this is not the first time that we have attempted to manage the performance of public servants. You are correct in saying that a wide range of systems are used in the various departments to evaluate employees' performance and give them feedback on their performance.

The changes made on April 1 will apply a systemic performance management model that will be used in all departments. The idea is to give all employees the same kind of explanations when they receive feedback from their managers about expectations, on a yearly basis. This is not new, but for us it is a new approach. This is the first year that we will implement this system.

As for the other questions you raised, I believe that the clerk has already provided some information. In our opinion, the best way to know what is happening in the public service is to follow the Blueprint 2020 process that we launched last year. We have had feedback from more than 110,000 members of the public service. They answered Blueprint 2020...

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

How many of these 110,000 people answered?

[Janice Charette]

I am referring to the 110,000 members of the public service...

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Was there a survey?

[Janice Charette]

... who participated. I used the word “survey”, but in fact it was not a survey as such. It was the Blueprint 2020 process. We invited public servants to share their perspectives on the public service and tell us how to move forward.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I am going to interrupt you there. I would like to ask you for more details.

Did you consult with employees or with managers? Did all of these people answer the questions? If not, what percentage of those who participated gave answers?

[Janice Charette]

As I have said, more than 110,000 people participated in this process by sharing their perspectives and their comments on the future of the public service.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

So you received 110,000 answers.

[Janice Charette]

110,000 members of the public service participated in the process.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Could you please tell me what you mean by the word “participated”? Does this mean bringing a number of people together in a room and holding a meeting?

[Janice Charette]

I believe that the clerk said at the beginning of the meeting that we used a number of tools to engage public servants from across the country in the Blueprint 2020 process. For example, there were round table discussions in the departments. We used a new tool, Web 2.0, as well as Twitter and our Intranet site. We have a sort of wiki that allows public servants to participate internally. A number of workshops were held to discuss the future of the public service. These brought together various communities, including new professionals, managers, and those responsible for managing budgets, for example. The goal was to find common points of view and to determine what we can do together in each department, agency or office to implement these new perspectives. For us, this was truly an exercise in listening to the comments and opinions of public servants.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you. I will have to stop you there. That is all the time we have for this morning.

Many thanks for having been here with us this morning and for answering committee members' questions on your 21st report. I hope that we will have the opportunity to speak to you again. I wish you the best of luck in your work moving forward.

The meeting is adjourned.