Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'd like to resume the meeting.

I want to welcome to the meeting Mr. Marc O'Sullivan, assistant secretary to the cabinet, senior personnel and special projects secretariat. He is accompanied by Mr. Karl Salgo. From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Mr. Ivan Blake, the executive director. I want to welcome each and every one of you, and I want to thank you very much for your attendance here today.

I understand, Mr. O'Sullivan, that you have opening remarks.

[Marc O'Sullivan, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personel and Special Projects Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Yes, I have a very short opening remark. I'm sure there's interest in being able to canvass the questions the members will have.

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here today to talk about performance management for deputy ministers, as well as their tenure. Before going on to your questions, I'll just take a few moments to give a broad overview of these two matters.

The performance management program is designed to encourage superior performance directly through monetary rewards related to annual goals. Through the PMP, deputies can be assessed and receive feedback on their performance to assist them in their future development.

Performance agreements are established annually between deputy ministers and the Clerk of the Privy Council. These agreements have three parts: policy and program commitments, management commitments, and personal or leadership commitments.

Program and policy results represent each organization’s main sectors of responsibility according to its business plan. They are in accordance with the government’s program and are reflected in the department’s RPP.

Management results are a key responsibility of deputy ministers with regard to organization and management, as prescribed in the TBS Management Accountability Framework. Those are generic commitments that apply to all deputy ministers.

Finally, personal results or results relating to leadership reflect key leadership abilities that deputy ministers must master. Those are also generic commitments.

The appraisal of deputy ministers is based on: the deputy minister’s self appraisal; comments from the relevant minister; the point of view of the Privy Council Office; comments from the Treasury Board Secretariat and from the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada; the point of view of the Public Service Commission and a few other agencies; as well as comments from the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Committee of Senior Officials.

The Clerk studies all comments before suggesting a performance rating. The Prime Minister receives the Clerk’s advice in order to establish each deputy minister’s final performance rating and set remuneration according to performance.

I would now like to make a few points respecting tenure of deputy ministers, which I know is a matter of interest to this committee.

As was indicated in the government's response to the 10th report of the public accounts committee in the last Parliament, the average tenure of deputy ministers over the last 10 years was nearly 3.5 years per assignment.

There are a variety of reasons deputy ministers are moved to new assignments, but essentially it boils down to ensuring that the operational and policy needs of the government can be met. The most obvious example is that if a deputy minister retires or passes away, this will necessitate the appointment of a new DM, and there's a domino effect that has repercussions on other portfolios. Also, moves can be necessitated by larger contextual changes, such as government reorganization or major changes in government priorities or policies, which in turn require changes in the deputy minister community.

Deputy ministers are managed as a population, and very often deputies are moved as part of the larger objective of developing the overall population. As they become more seasoned, deputies progress to the tougher DM jobs in which they can be of greater use. This also allows newer deputies to move into the less demanding portfolios wherein they can pursue their development.

To conclude, the government must balance, on the one hand, the desire--and everyone recognizes the need--to maintain deputies in their positions as long as possible in order to maintain continuity and stability in the organization against, on the other hand, the competing need to be flexible and to respond to the changing environment, as described above.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make myself available to answer questions.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to thank you very much, Mr. O'Sullivan.

We're going to go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for seven minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Minister, you were just here when Mr. Wouters was before us. When we talked about tenure, he highlighted that ministers may not be comfortable with a deputy minister when governments or ministers change, and so the deputy minister has to be changed. How do you feel about that comment?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

There's a working relationship that has to be effective in order for the government's policies to be able to move forward.

What Mr. Wouters was mentioning was that the deputy could be a very able and seasoned deputy, and the minister could be a very able and experienced minister, but they just can't work together. There are some conflicts. It happens in all workplaces. A CEO and the chairman of the board could simply not agree and not work together effectively. That happens, and that's one reason there may be a need for a change.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Do you think it would be helpful in circumstances of that sort? It's terrible. We just heard from Mr. Wouters that in his particular case it took over two years when he first became a deputy minister. It took him a significant amount of time to feel comfortable with his particular department. Ministers are politicians, and they can be somewhat finicky about things, whereas you would look towards the deputy ministers for some stability.

It's quite worrisome, because when I look here in your notes, you talk about evaluating deputies, and the first thing is self-evaluation of a deputy minister, so they evaluate themselves. That's a little worrisome.

Next you have the views of the responsible minister noted. We've seen in the past that there is a problem with that particular culture. A minister may not necessarily like, not so much the deputy minister, but the deputy minister's way of running things. Perhaps there is a threat there that a deputy minister feels, and maybe at that point there is a feeling that perhaps that deputy minister should be changed. I think that's the type of culture we're looking to change.

Do you think it would be helpful to have some sort of protocol in that set of circumstances, when a minister, at his or her whim or because of, as you've stated here, their views about a deputy minister, decides to have a deputy minister moved? Should there be a protocol that clearly spells out why that sort of move is taking place?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The minister's input into the overall evaluation of a deputy minister is one input among many. Ultimately the Clerk of the Privy Council advises the Prime Minister on the assessment of the deputies and will convey the views of the minister but will also comment on whether that's justified in the circumstances, whether that's a fair assessment.

I think you're alluding to a case where there is an improper attempt by the minister to influence, or to intimidate, or to get back at a deputy. That seems to be the hypothesis of your question. In that case, the clerk, in advising the Prime Minister, is in a position to say, well, the minister says this; however, take into consideration the following matter as well, to balance it out. The minister's input is but one.

Under our system of responsible government, it would be difficult not to get the minister's input. I think you need the minister's input into the assessment of how that deputy minister is performing. Absent that input, you would have an incomplete picture.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Don't you feel that it would be beneficial? First of all, experience is beneficial. We've heard from Mr. Wouters, and I think you'd hear it over and over from deputy ministers, that there's a learning curve, and after a certain point in time you become more proficient in running that department.

In your notes here, you reference flexibility. Too often we've seen that flexibility translate into avoiding accountability. I'm a rookie MP; I mentioned it earlier. But I've seen several deputy ministers, in my short period here, in the same department, and they tend to be those departments that have the greatest number of problems. It still appears that there's no clear protocol for how to go about establishing accountability.

One of the things that our committee came up with, which we thought was eminently rational, was that there be at least a three-year term. Of course circumstances might arise that would absolutely necessitate a change of deputy minister, but then those sets of circumstances could very clearly be laid out and there could be a check list. Why would the Privy Council reject those recommendations?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Establishing a fixed term, let's say a minimum of three years, takes away from the Prime Minister—and from the clerk in advising the Prime Minister—an important aspect of managing that deputy minister community.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Are you in fact then saying it was the Prime Minister's decision to reject that recommendation from the public accounts committee, or is this the advice of the Privy Council to the Prime Minister?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

It is the advice of the Privy Council Office—from the public servants in the Privy Council Office.

The point I want to make essentially is that you have all sorts of circumstances calling for a need to make a change in the deputy minister ranks. There was one example given about the inability of the deputy and the minister to function together effectively. There are unforeseen circumstances, such as retirements; and this fall Jack Stagg passed away. There are different circumstances leading to a need to make changes.

There have been some examples of too much turnover, and everyone recognizes the need to have as much stability as possible. There are other extremes, such as with Mr. Fellegi at Statistics Canada, who has been there for some 20 years. So you have the extremes and you have the average, which is just a bit more than three years. Is that average high enough? Ideally it should be a bit higher, and we're striving to achieve as much continuity and stability as we can in the ranks of deputy ministers, but it's also affected by changes of government that bring about changes in structure. The 1993 reorganization was a massive restructuring that led to huge changes in the ranks of deputy ministers. You have circumstances that are out of the control of the government of the day, and to say there would be some requirement of a minimum three-year term would hamper the ability to deal with those changing circumstances.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Well, it's not an attempt to avoid accountability. As Mr. Wouters mentioned earlier, there is work being done at ensuring accountability and ensuring that framework is there for deputy ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. O'Sullivan.

Monsieur Nadeau, sept minutes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If we drew up a table, how many deputy ministers would we have?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

There are 29 deputy ministers heading the ministries.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

There are therefore 29 deputy ministers at this time. That is what I wanted to know.

If I understand correctly, deputy ministers are nominated by the Privy Council, is that right?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The Clerk of the Privy Council makes recommendations to the Prime Minister on the appointment of deputy ministers; appointments are made by the Governor in Council upon recommendation by the Prime Minister.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Alright.

When there is a change in government, are deputy ministers automatically changed?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

No.

Contrary to other systems of government elsewhere in the world, Canada’s Public Service is non-partisan and apolitical so as to ensure continuity when there is a change in government.

When there is a change in government, the transition becomes a major challenge for the Public Service.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Alright.

Let’s talk about the round of musical chairs among the deputy ministers. I have been a Member of Parliament since January. Earlier during testimony, we heard that deputy ministers would be changing departments, etc. How do we get to that? Is it the minister who removes one deputy minister to replace him or her with someone else? How does this work?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

There is a variety of reasons. A change of structure within the government can happen in such a way that certain departments need to be reorganized. A deputy minister may retire and that can create a domino effect: he is replaced by someone and another vacant post must therefore be filled. In effect, a change to one deputy minister post generates other changes.

Changes can also occur because the government modifies its priorities and/or policies. A deputy minister may be deemed to have the required qualities and abilities to make the new issues progress or the new priority requires the hand of a different deputy minister, who is then appointed to shepherd the cause.

There is a variety of reasons.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Alright.

Within this framework, how do we determine whether someone can become deputy minister? What are the criteria? You spoke earlier about the Privy Council.

Does the appointment of a deputy minister result from a political direction or is it based solely on abilities?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

It is completely apolitical. There is no political influence related to this issue. The Privy Council Office is constantly developing lists of persons with a demonstrated aptitude for becoming deputy minister someday.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Where are these people mainly recruited from?