Government Operations Committee on Nov. 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. Clarke, you have five minutes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is asking for a supplement of about $46 million. Actually, it's $60 million, but $46 million is for the—

funding for incremental costs related to post-implementation pay operations.

Is that related to the problems with Phoenix?

[Serge Dupont]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I don't have those numbers. This isn't part of the PCO's supplementary estimates (B). These are probably numbers from Public Services and Procurement Canada, and I confess I'm not prepared to answer questions about them.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I understand.

That's it for me.

Mr. McCauley, it's your turn.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks.

I don't have much for you, just the Blueprint 2020. I'm curious, you have the Destination 2020, but where we are right now, is it still a valid plan, or does it need to be taken apart completely? More resources? Less resources? A clean break and a new program? Could I just get your ideas or your thoughts on it?

[Serge Dupont]

Destination 2020 was never about resources. There was never a call for additional resources in support of the exercise or in support of its conclusions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's not what I'm asking. Are we on track? Should we be adjusting midway through? It's just your thoughts on where we need to go with it.

[Serge Dupont]

Yes, that's what I'm sharing with you. The vision is very much on track. The vision was a bottom-up vision that came through from our staff from right across Canada through a series of engagement sessions. We are acting on some of the conclusions and the messages and the key interest flowing from that, for example, in providing greater opportunities for mobility, for people to learn, to have new learning experiences in the public service.

There are initiatives being taken in a decentralized fashion across departments in response to Destination 2020. Destination 2020 will be living and breathing, and I would venture, it will be beyond 2020. Of course, it will be refreshed over time, but this is, frankly, a call from the staff of the public service who want to be meaningful, who want to be relevant, to work with the best possible tools, to be as representative as they can to Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I was looking for feedback on it. Is there anything big that is identified or stumbled upon that says we need to address this right away, we need to look at this right away, or is it just incrementally working through the process?

[Serge Dupont]

That's a good question. One could think, is there a big bang that is necessary in some fashion or another? I think there are a series of discrete initiatives that are making a difference. I'm not a fan of saying we're happy with just incrementalism. I think we do have to think boldly about recruitment, about how we broaden the reach, about how we bring the millennials in, about how we promote the millennials.

You're asking me for my views. I would love to see deputy ministers at age 40, where we'd be able to promote individuals faster so that we're more nimble, more energetic as a public service. It's a vision that we have. It's an ambition we have. Destination 2020 was a great exchange with our staff that we're acting upon, and I think it will continue to inspire the public service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

There's another minute if you want it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Go ahead.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

How many employees are at the Privy Council Office?

[Serge Dupont]

There are about 1,050, unless I'm mistaken. It's close to the same number as about six or seven years ago, meaning that, even with the additional resources we'll have this year, the Privy Council Office will have close to the same level of resources as it did six or seven years ago.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Perfect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ayoub, you have five minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

I will try understand. One thing seems obvious to me, but I would like you to confirm it. When we make changes, we need more transparency, more consultation, and when we want to reach out to Canadians, like the current government does, we need additional resources. I imagine that if it wasn't done in the past or if the vision was redirected, it would be normal to need to allocate budgets to consult Canadians.

Let's take the example of Senate appointments or all the jobs across Canada. If you only make appointments, if you don't call for applications, as you said earlier, it might cost less, but you'd simply be making appointments.

You're requesting new funds, a normal part of the budget process. How will those funds help in carrying out that consultation, and support the Prime Minister's Office and all the departments? Certain consultation plans or democratic reform come to mind. Could you give me some examples of changes and progress that have been made?

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, I can take the example of the Senate appointment process. The amounts requested will be higher this year than they will be in subsequent years since there are a significant number of vacancies. This year, we have a total of $1.5 million, which represents five people in the Privy Council Office.

This helped support a process that garnered 2,700 applications through an invitation to all Canadians on a website. It also allowed an advisory committee to make recommendations to the Prime Minister to fill 21 positions in seven provinces. It is considered that the contribution of these resources, which are not enormous, is important for democratic life in Canada.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Does that bring together the mandate letters to the ministers and the Prime Minister's desire to open these Senate positions?

[Serge Dupont]

In this case, it was up to the Prime Minister. As I recall, it was probably reflected in the mandate letter of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, but it also fell to the Prime Minister. It was an important process.

All the mandate letters contain a request from the Prime Minister to work closely, for instance, with the provinces and territories, with indigenous groups, to have that openness.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I have to interrupt you, Mr. Dupont. Your answer was comprehensive. Thank you.

I want to move on to the Results and Delivery Unit, which is a new tool, a new way to quantify and better monitor the progress of the ministerial mandate letter process, departmental objectives and the Prime Minister's objectives. Can you explain how it works and the office dynamic?

[Serge Dupont]

This office supports the Cabinet Committee on Agenda, Results and Communications. It also supports meetings between the Prime Minister and his ministers on a series of priority matters, such as innovation, infrastructure and reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

For each major priority, the Results and Delivery Unit works with the departments involved to better define expected results, to see how to measure the results over time and, in the case of discrepancies, to find the data that is not available.

One person in each department has been made responsible to collect data to support accountability to Canadians and to Parliament. On the one hand, it is a driving unit within the government and, on the other, an advisory unit for the Prime Minister so that he can work with his ministers and with Canadians to focus on results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, before we go to Mr. Weir, for three minutes, when we excuse our witnesses at the conclusion of this meeting, I'd like about five minutes in camera to discuss future business. It shouldn't take any longer than that.

Mr. Weir, you have three minutes, please.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you.

When the Public Service Commission appeared before our committee on May 12, officials indicated that the challenge was not necessarily to attract new recruits but to retain them within the federal public service.

I wonder if you could elaborate on why that's the case.

[Gerry Thom]

You're right. The situation is still the same. There are no real issues as far as attracting individuals to come to work for the federal public service. The problem is keeping them here for a long time, for a full career. What we have to realize and live with is that we have to change the way we manage our resources. What we see is that the people who are coming in are not necessarily going to stay for 30 or 35 years in the public service, and not for bad reasons or good reasons. That's the way it is. They want different challenges and so on. What we need to do, I think, is to find a mechanism so that people can leave and come back easily to the public service, which does not exist right now. Right now, if you want to go, there are programs that exist, but they are complicated. They take a lot of work, a lot of effort.

We have to find a way that, if an individual wants to go for good reasons to the private sector, or a provincial government, or anywhere else, then they can go, come back easily to continue their career with us, bring that experience, and at the same time, not be penalized for all the benefits that they might lose over the few years.

This is one way of trying to retain. We have to change our mindset. We cannot just hire the way we did and think that people will just stay with the organization because it's a great place to work and so on. We have to do a little bit more.