Yes, that is a good point. The Minister of Labour might want to make a few comments on this as well.
If we need 7,000 people a year just to keep pace with the number of people who are retiring, why are we so restrictive in the way we hire people? Why do we not throw it open? After all, we are a country, a democratic country. If people happen to live in Halifax or Newfoundland, why can they not apply for every single job that becomes available within the public service? It stands to reason that they should be able to do that.
We need 7,000 new people every year just to keep pace with retirement. A hiring process that lumbers on for months often sees the best people and the brightest job applicants scooped up by the private sector. When we add to this a looming shortage of skilled workers in all sectors as the baby boomers retire, the public service is going to be very hard-pressed to obtain good workers.
If there is a criticism of the government here, it is that it has taken this long to act on the reality of the looming skills shortage in all sectors of the economy. As for the act, it appears to be very thorough and very detailed. The devil, they say, is in the details. Lawyers and labour leaders have combed through the fine print. If there are major problems, other than the ones I have outlined, I am sure we will be hearing from the various stakeholders in the system. The public service unions have expressed concern and hopefully some of these concerns will be dealt with.
I think it is important that managers have a greater say in the hiring process. After all, the people being hired are people we have to work with every single day. As an employee and an employer, I have often seen the wisdom in having a harmonious productive workplace.
I recently read an article that referred to a study on the issue of who did the best hiring, the area manager or the technocrats from the human resources section. The study found that while both entities could assess applications on their level of technical competence, the manager did a much better job of picking an employee who also fit into the organization. Simply put, personality counts.
Most of the amendments that have been introduced make for greater clarity and do not detract from the overall thrust of the bill. However I am curious as to whether the government will support in the House an amendment passed in committee.
Clause 3(5), on page 158 of the original draft, indicates that:
A Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a period of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in Council on address of the Senate and House of Commons
In the amended draft, clause 3(5) now reads:
The President and other Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. The appointment of the President shall be made by commission under the Great Seal, after approval by resolution of the Senate andHouse of Commons.
I assume that means that the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission has to be ratified by Parliament. I consider that to be a positive development.
However, as I said, the bulk of the amendments are matters of wording and clarity and generally give some strength to the bill.
I do not know if we can vote on certain parts of the bill but we do support the thrust of the bill. I would like the minister to address some of the practical concerns that I told her about today, and hopefully she will.