Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci beaucoup. Bonjour, tout le monde.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 22, 2010, chapter 2, “Modernizing Human Resource Management”, of the spring 2010 report of the Auditor General of Canada, we have with us this morning, from the Office of the Auditor General, of course, Madam Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Madame Marie Bergeron, principal; and from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada--Madame, bonjour--and also from Treasury Board Secretariat we have Madam Susan Cartwright, senior advisor, legislative review of the Public Service Modernization Act, and Monsieur Ross MacLeod,

Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector.

Welcome one and all.

Before we begin and before I go to our witnesses, I had a request. There appears to be a little inconvenience in terms of scheduling for one of our witnesses. I asked members around the table whether we could make an accommodation, but as I understand it now, that might not necessarily have to be the case. However, I will ask the committee if it's okay, if some of the questions are finished, if one of our witnesses may leave earlier.

Is that okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I do not want to be a spoilsport, but when official representatives are invited to appear before the committee for a two-hour hearing, they are expected to be present during the entire hearing.

Before consenting to this request, I would like to know the reasons for it. When we put questions, a certain momentum builds up. Now, without a crystal ball, we cannot tell what will be relevant and what will be irrelevant during the second hour. I would like to know what circumstances can justify a witness not being present during the entire hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Ms. Faille.

I had not intended to go into the details, but perhaps we will have to do it.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

My understanding is the witness has agreed to stay as long as necessary. If it's possible, she'd like to leave early, but she's willing to stay as long as necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think Madame Faille has made the point for the entire committee, and I think the witness understands that when the committee calls everybody, it's for the two-hour period. I think there's a recognition that that be the case.

If we can leave that up to the chair's discretion, we will make the decision once all the members have put their questions. Otherwise, I would like to make the decision for you and rule that the two hours are necessary.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

As I already said, I have some reservations about the fact that witnesses who have been called upon to appear be allowed to leave before the end of the hearing. I would not want this to become common practice. The committee has never accepted that someone be allowed to appear before the committee and then leave whenever they please or when the chair determines that they are allowed to leave. I do not know what the motives are, and thus I do not necessarily want to spend too much time on this issue, but nevertheless, in practice, it is up to the committee to make decisions about the duration of hearings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madam. I have taken good note of what you said and I assure you that I will comply with all committee precedents.

Now let us hear the witnesses.

Ms. Fraser, you have the floor.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for this opportunity to discuss chapter 2, “Modernizing Human Resource Management”.

Joining me at the table today are Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, and Marie Bergeron, principal, who are responsible for this audit.

The Public Service Modernization Act amended four pieces of legislation and is designed to transform the way the federal government hires, manages, and supports its employees. It is a complex undertaking that involves many stakeholders.

In this audit, we examined whether the central agencies and the departments and agencies had implemented the new legislative requirements, met the reporting requirements, and reported on the progress of the act's application. We examined whether the new or revised roles and responsibilities were exercised in accordance with the legislation and we also looked at preparations for the upcoming legislative review called for in the act.

I would note for the committee that the work for this audit was completed in September of 2009.

We found that the key legislative requirements have been implemented. The new concept of merit is being applied, and managers are using the new staffing flexibilities. New organizations were created, such as the Public Service Staffing Tribunal and the Canada School of Public Service. The government created the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer within the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to take over the various human resource responsibilities of the secretariat.

We have noted that generally the entities have met the reporting requirements.

Although the reports contain information about implementation activities, there is little information about interim achievements or the actual impact of the legislation. The government, however, had committed to reporting on this progress in 2005.

We also noted that the secretariat had not fully developed a set of performance indicators that would allow it to report on the results of implementation of the changes. As a result, the secretariat is limited in its capacity to link results to expectations and to identify trends and assess impacts.

It is important that good information on progress and achievements of the new legislation be produced to assess its impacts. We noted that the Public Service Commission reported in its latest annual report as it did in previous years that it still takes longer to staff a position than before the new legislation was implemented.

The legislation calls for a review of the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act starting in 2010, which is five years after implementation. The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for reporting on the review results, a team has been established and preparations are progressing. The objective is to report in 2010 or early 2011.

Mr. Chair, we recognize that the implementation of the Public Service Modernization Act is still a process in transition. However, I am concerned that the lack of information about measures and interim achievements could limit the review team's ability to provide meaningful information to support the review and inform Parliament to allow it to propose any changes or improvements. Having good information about achievements is needed to manage the challenges, monitor progress and ensure the expected results are realized.

We made recommendations to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the review team regarding the information required for the legislative review. The entities have agreed with our recommendations and have made commitments accordingly. Your committee may wish to ask how they will address this issue.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions that committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madam Fraser.

Madame d'Auray.

[Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to come here today. Let me, if I may, offer my congratulations on your chairmanship.

With me today, as indicated, are Susan Cartwright, who is leading the legislative review of the Public Service Modernization Act as the senior adviser to the Privy Council Office, and Mr. Ross MacLeod, the assistant deputy minister of.... I won't read the long title, but he is responsible for all the planning and policy issues with regard to human resources in the office of the CHRO within Treasury Board Secretariat.

We are pleased to be here today to talk to you about the modernization of human resources management in the federal government, which is vital to ensuring a high-performing public service. I would like to thank the Auditor General for her chapter on the implementation of the Public Service Modernization Act.

This chapter, as Ms. Fraser said, includes two recommendations. The first is directed to the Treasury Board Secretariat, while the second directly touches the work my colleague Susan Cartwright has been doing with her team to lead the legislative review of the PSMA.

The recommendation for the secretariat calls on us to provide more timely information to Parliament, and to report on whether the changes to human resources management have achieved the results intended by the PSMA. We agree, as Ms. Fraser said in the report, and we welcome the Auditor General's advice in this regard. We recognize that while the PSMA has been fully implemented, there is still work to be done in a few areas and room for improvement.

This includes our reporting to Parliament on human resources issues. While we have experienced some delays, we are confident that we have the matter in hand and future reports will be more timely.

I would note that the governance landscape for people management continues to evolve and that our approach to measurement and benchmarking is maturing. That said, I'm pleased with the continuous progress we have made in assessing the state of human resources management across the government.

Two of our most important assessment tools in this regard are the Treasury Board Secretariat's management accountability framework and the Public Service Commission's staffing management accountability framework.

The management accountability framework for the secretariat sets out the expectations of senior public service managers for good public service management. It is structured around nine key elements that collectively define management and it assesses departments in several areas of human resources, such as employee engagement, leadership, employment equity, learning, development, performance management, integrated human resources and business planning, staffing, and official languages. It also allows for discussion around the departmental context in which the human resources management operates.

As the MAF—as we call it—assessment process is undertaken once a year, we have also recently introduced a people management dashboard that allows deputy heads, human resources practitioners, and managers to track online their organization's performance throughout the year and set targets for improvement across a range of measures.

This dashboard we introduced only this year. It provides vital data on people management trends and issues, and it allows me as a deputy head to focus on key areas for improvement and to engage managers. I can track my progress over the year and then once a year assess my overall situation.

For its part, the Staffing Management Accountability Framework helps the Public Service Commission to review and evaluate staffing performance and to provide feedback to delegated public service organizations. It sets out key areas for a well-managed appointment system that achieves progress in making the staffing process more flexible and efficient, and strengthens respect for the appointment values involved.

Both these tools—the Management Accountability Framework and the Staffing Management Accountability Framework—are now well integrated into the public service and are used to measure progress in achieving PSMA objectives. That said, our people management environment is constantly evolving and the areas we assess are far from static.

In the almost five years since the coming into force of the PSEA, in addition to changes to HR governance, our operating context has evolved considerably, shaped by the recent financial-economic issues or crisis, the arrival of a new generation of public servants, the growing diversity of our workforce, and the growing impact of technology on how we work. For example, in 2009 alone we saw the introduction of the Expenditure Restraint Act, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and the creation of the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer in the Treasury Board Secretariat. Those are three major initiatives in a single year.

I see that my time is up. Therefore, I will skip over the rest of my presentation and tell you that the federal public service is a highly complex organization. It is the biggest employer in Canada. We function in a constantly changing environment. We take ad hoc measures and periodical measures to ensure its growth within the frameworks and obligations of the Public Service Modernization Act.

Now I will give the floor to my colleague.

I would ask my colleague Susan Cartwright to give you a perspective of the legislative review that is currently under way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you very much, Madame d'Auray.

I'm sorry to have to rush people, but we've gone well over time, and I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to address some of the issues that are contained in your brief through the questions.

We will go to Madame Cartwright for....

I think she took up some of your time, Madame.

[Susan Cartwright, Senior Advisor, Legislative Review of the Public Service Modernization Act, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Members of the committee, Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Public Service Modernization Act legislative review. What we call the PSMA review is, in fact, examining the administration and operation of the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, two of the components of PSMA.

As the secretary noted, the Auditor General made one recommendation related to the work my team and I are doing. It calls on my team to ensure that information provided to support the legislative review will allow the report by the President of the Treasury Board to provide meaningful information to Parliament on the extent to which the expectations of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act have been met, and to propose any changes, including improvements.

We agree wholeheartedly with the objective of having sound and useful information, and as we planned for and began to execute the review, we took this into account. To ensure that our review is rigorous and credible, we have undertaken a range of activities to enable us to have the information we need. Allow me to mention only a few.

We began by going through the legislation clause by clause to develop a sound appreciation of the intentions, objectives, and changes. We then determined the data and information we required and where best to obtain it. To the extent possible, we sought to use existing data. If new information was needed, we tried to collect it in a coordinated manner, thereby maximizing efficiency and effectiveness. This enabled us to focus our efforts on bringing the essential information together, analyzing it, and drawing legitimate conclusions from it.

Early on, we recognized the importance of working with key partners and stakeholders who share an interest in, and hold important information about, people management. These include the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Public Service Commission, deputy ministers, bargaining agents and HR professionals. Not only did we want to learn about stakeholders' experiences, but we wanted our review to be a useful process and to act as an opportunity for learning by everyone, including for our key partners and stakeholders.

We developed a comprehensive engagement strategy that has enabled us to consult well over 500 individuals and organizations across the country. This included deputy heads, managers, employees, HR professionals, bargaining agent representatives, various communities and employment equity groups, all of whom provided important qualitative information.

We used a variety of methods to gather this information. It was key for us that these efforts brought together individuals representing different departments, groups, professions and regions.

As the senior advisor leading this review, I have also had ongoing bilateral discussions with senior officials at the Public Service Commission and the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer on a range of issues. My team and I also spoke with a number of former deputy heads, retired senior federal officials, organizational change experts, academics and others. This allowed us to both draw on their knowledge and experience and to complement what we were gathering from other sources.

We have also consulted with former public service senior officials, human resources professionals, and bargaining agents who were in place when the PSMA was developed and tabled in Parliament. This offered us an important historical perspective.

I have also participated in two armchair discussions hosted by the Canada School of Public Service. These sessions were another valuable means of hearing from public servants across the country.

Our research, which is both quantitative and qualitative, is providing insight into how the legislation is being administered. It also informed us on strong practices and progress, as well as areas where possible adjustments may be required. It includes input from: the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Canada School of Public Service.

Finally, I would like to mention that we've also undertaken limited consultations with officials in other jurisdictions both in Canada and abroad, and we've explored what's been done in other countries that have recently reformed their human resources legislation. In short, our work so far puts us in an excellent position to complete the work of this legislative review. We are currently completing our analysis in order to develop options and recommendations, and we will be providing our report to the President of the Treasury Board in early 2011. We've noted the interest that's been expressed in the review and look forward to the results of the review being made public.

Until then, I think it's--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madam, sorry to interrupt you like that. I think they put me here because they wanted somebody to be less than gracious, so I'm going to fulfill their expectations. Thank you very much for that. Everybody else already has your briefing.

We're going to go into questions immediately from parliamentarians. I gave you some grace time, but unfortunately we were going well beyond that period.

Since we're talking about time, I'm just wondering whether Madame d'Auray and her colleagues think that Parliament is unrealistic in the timeframes it puts out for implementing these changes.

[Michelle d'Auray]

The legislation came into force at various periods. On the PSEA, the Public Service Employment Act, its fifth year actually comes to an end in December 2010, so we have started the process of review in order to be able to meet the timing, because the various pieces of legislation came into force at different times.

I think in some ways the review process galvanizes us to look at where we were and how far we've come, and at what should be the next phase and what should be the next opportunities for development. It is in some ways, though, a very short timeframe to assess all of the changes, not the legislative changes, but the cultural, the behavioural, the implementation.... These are some fundamental changes to the practices of human resources management in the federal public service. In some ways, five years is a good number, but five years is also short to be able to measure the full impact of all of these changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I wonder what Mr. Nav Bains would have to say. Anyway, I don't want to condition your questions.

Mr. Bains, to you.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the first question. Maybe he's trying to indicate where I need to head with my line of questioning.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for coming out.

My first question is actually for Madam Fraser with respect to your report. In paragraph 2.59 you indicate that “the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has been slow in releasing the annual reports.” You further go on to state that:

We found that the annual reports for the 2005–06 and 2006–07 fiscal years were tabled two years following the end of the respective fiscal year they covered. The 2007–08 annual report is expected to be tabled in 2010.

Why is it important to have timely reporting, first of all, just to get that clarification? Also, do you deem this timeline to be reasonable in terms of reporting? Or does that need to be sped up, in your opinion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madam Fraser.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

Human resources are one of the major assets of the federal government, and it is important that Parliament be informed of human resource management matters in a timely manner so that they know how well things are progressing, especially when you have new legislation like this that's come in, new expectations. So these reports are important. We note, of course, ourselves in the report that they were tabled some two years after the year-end, which we believe is too long. They should be more timely. I believe the 2007-08 report has now been tabled this year, but again, it would be two years, so there might be a question as well to the secretariat about why it takes so long and whether there are ways to accelerate the timeliness of those reports.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I planned to ask that question. You want it to be reasonably timely, so is there a certain timeline you had in your mind that you think would be applicable, based on your reporting, your experience on your audit?

[Sheila Fraser]

We didn't have a specific timeline, but certainly I would say no more than a year and preferably less than a year after the year-end.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

As a follow-up to that question, to the secretariat, perhaps you can elaborate on that. Why does it take two years for this reporting to take place? Can we expect to see any changes going forward? Are there any changes planned to the reporting to Parliament of these reports?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

We have noted and we agree with the issues with regard to the timing, if I can put it this way, of the tabling of the annual report to Parliament on people management. One of the major reasons for the delays, frankly, has been a lot of organizational changes, both in the creation initially of the public service agency and, more recently, in the integration and elimination of the agency and reintegration back into the Treasury Board Secretariat.

It is the same organization and group of people who produce a whole range of reports that are also required to be tabled before Parliament--for example, the official languages annual report, the annual report on employment equity, and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act annual report. So we will tend to produce the reports that have specific deadlines related to legal obligations to produce the reports to Parliament and then work on the people management report to Parliament. It's more a question of a lot of changes taking place within a very short timeframe and having to meet the legal obligations for other reports, and then coming to this particular report.

We have taken the steps, now that the organization has stabilized, to put in a system of more timely reporting, and we should be seeing an improvement in that regard.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

To get clarification with respect to the releasing of the information on official languages, employment equity, and human resource modernization reports, they're on track to be--