Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[Daphne Meredith]

Mr. Chair, if I could add to that, we think that this needs continuous dialogue. It's not something you tick off and say we've done, for the reasons the Auditor General outlined. New public servants come in and new issues are raised, as well, that we need to talk through.

That's why we have values and ethics embedded in no fewer than 30 course offerings at the Canada School of Public Service. As well, I'd say that our intensive engagement, especially over the past year, as we've talked through issues in the new conflict of interest regime.... I've had--I counted them before coming here--at least 12 occasions on which I've talked to groups of deputy ministers about how we go about formulating and implementing the new regime.

This is very much in people's minds. I think they've embraced the idea that it should be a continuous focus and part of a continuous dialogue.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

We go back to 2005 or 2007, and it continues. Can you just explain for us, and the people who will be reading this, some of the actual differences in the policy on conflict of interest and post-employment? What are the differences between this one and the current policy? Because they're not very old.

[Daphne Meredith]

There are some similarities. One is that the current one is codified. The new one will be codified as well. The new one will apply to a much broader group of organizations, including crown corporations and separate agencies, which are not covered by the current code. So a key difference is who they apply to.

In terms of the new one for conflict of interest, it will deal with some of the issues I identified earlier, including the issues posed by social media, the post-employment regime and how it is enforced, and how deputy heads or CEOs may go about doing risk assessments in their own organizations. Those are some of the differences.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Fraser, for us and for Canadian taxpayers, when we bring in these codes and procedures—and I understand the process—do we have any idea of the amount of time and resources used and the cost of implementing these programs?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would doubt there is a comprehensive costing of the efforts to implement and maintain these sorts of programs. I would, though, ask what the cost would be not to bring this in.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think that likely goes back to my first question or comment, on the need for increasing oversight. I think it's a reality of our social structure. We continue to seem to be having to put more oversight on people's shoulders to make sure things are done right in terms of the code of conduct.

[Sheila Fraser]

Can I just respond to that, Chair?

I don't really think this is a question of oversight or someone checking. It's making sure that public servants are aware of the values and ethics expected of public servants, that they know who to go to if they find themselves in awkward situations that may arise for all kinds of reasons, and that the management in every department and agency knows how to deal with those sorts of situations. I think it's giving the people the tools to be able to do their jobs as they would want and to avoid these kinds of situations where possible.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Just a brief response, Madame d'Auray.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Briefly, all of this is really around creating an opportunity for dialogue and constant evolution. These issues are not static. The principles are core, the values are core. How people interpret them, how they deal with them on a daily basis, changes. Issues arise, and we have to create an opportunity for people to be able to discuss them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine.

Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Allen, please. Five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to where we left off.

Madame d'Auray, you quite ably pointed out an excellent example of how culture in an organization teaches. My dilemma is, how are short-term employees ever taught, if they're not an integral part of the culture for any length of time? Over the last number of years we've seen an ever-increasing number of contract employees—not consultants, but contract employees—who then become temporary. When you do risk assessments, for me this is a glaring example of a potential risk in an organization where we have folks who perhaps don't have the benefit of formal training—because they simply sign a declaration—and don't stay with the organization long enough to develop a culture to teach and help teach.

I agree with you, Madame d'Auray, that does happen. We can't codify it all. I learned that a long time ago in municipal government. You don't codify everything. You've got to figure it out sometimes.

The other part I want to address is training. We've seen a reduction in human resources of 23 full-time equivalents—I hate the term, by the way, because I've never seen a part-time body walk around—down to 11. According to what you're telling us, and what the Auditor General is saying in the report, you've handed off to deputy heads. Unfortunately, the deputy heads are saying they don't have the up-to-date tools to carry forward what they're being asked to do.

I would ask Madam Fraser to comment first on this aspect of when we're not involved integrally in the culture, how do we learn, and is that a potential risk we're not looking at and maybe should be? Then I'll get back to the training piece with Madam Meredith and Madame d'Auray.

[Sheila Fraser]

I find it a little difficult to answer the question, Chair. I think a lot will depend on the kind of work being given to those short-term employees. Again, it goes back to the risk assessment—what areas people are working in, if they are largely short-term employees that would increase the risk, I think. Mitigation efforts would have to be put in place.

I think it really goes back to the jobs they're doing.

[Daphne Meredith]

To provide a bit of perspective on the proportion of term contract employees versus indeterminate, about 86% of the core public administration is employed on an indeterminate basis. That means about 190,000 would be indeterminate for a longer term, where they can absorb the culture and values of the public service.

I completely support the Auditor General's point that you have to look at what these people are doing. It's a question of risk assessment and targeted measures to deal with the risk they may present.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I appreciate the fact that you talk about we're looking at what they do. I'm not suggesting that we're talking about somebody who is filling in at the front desk, is at a primary position to answer the phone. Clearly we're looking at folks who potentially.... And the Auditor General pointed out in 2007 what happened with folks who were actually setting up terms of reference for contracts. So I'm really looking at those sorts of folks.

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, Madam Meredith, the term “indeterminate employees” I always find fascinating, quite frankly. I'm not quite sure in human terms what we are. We are FTEs and indeterminates. It never fails to amaze me how human resource managers can come up with new terms for real living and breathing people. But I'll leave that as it is for another discussion.

[Daphne Meredith]

Thank you.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

So really for me the determination is, as Madam Fraser has pointed out, looking at the job specific, because we do hire—albeit 14% worth—folks who make decisions that indeed could have conflict of interest. I'm wondering if you have identified them, put a big star around it, and said you need to do a really good risk assessment of these particular groups of employees. That is, not the employee—not me specifically, if I were the employee—but the groups of employees, so we're actually looking at them and saying we really need to do a risk assessment around this group because of all of the things that won't fit into our nice parameters of the indeterminates.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thanks, Mr. Allen.

A response, please, from Madame d'Auray.

[Michelle d'Auray]

This is really an issue where the individual deputy heads have to take into account the nature of their organizations and what is the nature of the risk to their organizations. It is not something we can dictate from the centre. It really has to be done department by department, organization by organization, depending on the nature of the work, depending on the percentage of terms versus temporary help, all of those. It really is dependent on the nature of the organization and the risks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you, Madame d'Auray.

And now Mr. Dreeshen, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thanks to our witnesses for being here today.

Madam Fraser, you spoke about the public service awareness for those times when things are awkward so they have something in their back pockets so that they're able to manage those situations. I suppose my question to you would start with, are you satisfied that the departments that you've audited appreciate the value of those clear and properly implemented procedures when it relates to conflict of interest? And secondly, do departments seem willing to assume their responsibilities when it comes to managing conflict of interest and implementing the values and ethics code for the public service?

[Sheila Fraser]

Certainly in this audit we saw that all of the five departments had put in place the structures, policies, training that were expected under the 2003 code. So I do believe they were taking it seriously.

We do have some recommendations to them that they need to complete risk assessments. And I think it's as we've been discussing earlier, this is sort of a continuous thing; it's not because you put in place the structures that you can say “We've done it and we've taken care of it”. As the secretary has pointed out, it is really the ongoing dialogue, communication, and awareness activities that need to continue.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

To Treasury Board Secretariat, we looked at the Canada School of Public Service and I guess I have some questions about that. You also described this “Paving the Way” course that is there that has a section on conflict of interest. I'm interested in information about the course, additional training provided on managing conflict of interest in the school.

Also, in the Auditor General's report, paragraph 4.33, there seemed to be a differential between the training that is geared to managers as well as the difference between middle management and senior management. So I'm just wondering if you could give us a little bit of insight as to what the differences would be or what you feel they would be in those two groups.

[Daphne Meredith]

Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned a little earlier, the school has at least 30 course offerings that include a significant component of values and ethics training. The values and ethics code would apply to employees, managers, and executives alike. All of them would be trained on the values and ethics code, but depending on their role in the organization, there may be some tailored training--for example, to managers on how to have a conversation with employees around conflict of interest issues. We mentioned earlier the importance of employees feeling knowledgeable enough and comfortable in raising such issues. Sometimes it's the manager who can create the right context for them to do so. Those are perhaps some special elements that might be targeted at managers per se. All of the training, as I mentioned, would be in relation to the values and ethics code that all public servants are to adhere to.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Recommendation 2, paragraph 434, says:

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should work with deputy heads to identify the common needs of departments and agencies for training that is related to conflict of interest, and should support deputy heads in meeting those needs.

How do you plan to move forward with this particular recommendation, and how will you know once that support is actually there?