OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Á

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Mr. Michael Nurse (Associate Deputy Minister and Champion for the Middle Managers Community, Department of Public Works and Government Services)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Michael Nurse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Linda Duxbury (Professor, School of Business, Carleton University, Director of Research, Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work, As Individual)

Á

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1115

Mr. Michael Nurse

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Á

1120

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Á

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Michael Nurse

Á

1130

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Michael Nurse

Á

1135

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Á

1140

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Michael Nurse

Á

1145

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Ken Epp

Á

1150

Mr. Michael Nurse

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Paul Szabo

Á

1155

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Michael Nurse

Â

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Â

1205

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Michael Nurse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Nurse

Â

1210

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Michael Nurse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Michael Nurse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Â

1215

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Â

1220

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Michael Nurse

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Michael Nurse

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Nurse

Â

1225

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Â

1230

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Michael Nurse

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Michael Nurse

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Â

1235

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Michael Nurse

Â

1240

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Michael Nurse

Ms. Linda Duxbury

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1245

Ms. Linda Duxbury

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 024

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're resuming our review of Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

    I'd like to welcome to the committee this morning Mr. Michael Nurse, associate deputy minister and champion for the middle managers community, Department of Public Works and Government Services, and Linda Duxbury, professor, School of Business, Carleton University, director of research, Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work. Thank you very much for coming this morning and helping us as we continue our deliberations on Bill C-25.

    Mr. Nurse, would you like to start?

    Mr. Michael Nurse (Associate Deputy Minister and Champion for the Middle Managers Community, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Out of respect for the committee and the workload you have, I'll make a few comments. I'm going to first thank you very much for the opportunity of being here. I'm going to table my formal remarks, in the interest of time.

    It was mentioned that I'm the champion for a group of middle managers within the federal government. They are people who either manage a budget or human resources below the executive level in the federal government. Roughly speaking, they are about 40,000 people. I've been asked to be champion on their behalf and really am focused on strengthening the community of managers as helping to achieve government services renewal.

    Basically, my role is to provide leadership and a channel to the decision-makers to help facilitate any changes to assist the middle managers. They're a key resource. They're the people out in your constituency, your riding, the ones who help make this public service work so well every day. They're faced with a constantly changing environment and a heavy workload. Obviously, my desire, as well as many others', is to try to give them as much support as possible.

    The bill is offering increased flexibility in staffing and managing people, and I think it does provide some reinforcement and safeguards to ensure that there is no abuse of authority and does help sustain the merit principle and a non-partisan public service. It also concerns itself with the important element, in my mind, of training all levels, but my concern is training and learning to help these managers be as capable as they are. I think the need for professional development is very important, with or without the bill, but the bill certainly supports that.

    Another element I think is really important and may play a big role here is the dialogue between them and bargaining agents. Bargaining agents represent a very large proportion of the public service, and the day-to-day workload with middle managers is extremely important. The ability to learn how to work with the bargaining agents and do some co-development and co-work has, as I've seen it personally in my experience as associate deputy, tremendous benefit. Employee surveys we have done show that employees have a great deal of confidence in this group of people who work very closely with them and depend on them very much.

    So in a very general summary, this is the group I represent, and I want to try to help them as much as possible in their success towards making this public service great.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Mr. Nurse, I'd also like to ask the committee's agreement to have the written testimony deemed to have been entered into the record.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: Mr. Chair, committee members, good morning.

    First, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my views on how Bill C-25 relates to managers in the public service. As champion for the middle managers community, I am focused on strengthening the community of managers as one way of achieving the government's public service renewal. My role is to provide leadership and a channel to decision-makers to help facilitate that change.

    Middle managers are an integral part of the revitalization of the federal public service. They are charged with a unique role. In this fast changing world, they work between vision and action. That means they get the job done, translating the strategic direction set by senior management into concrete action. And today, to get the job done, a successful manager has to engage in team work, leadership, and partnerships. A manager must work horizontally with all stakeholders. More and more middle managers are facilitators, champions of innovation, and architects of partnerships, but right now they are overworked and are in desperate need of support. Work has become more complex and fast-paced. It requires greater innovation, more horizontal cooperation across departments and agencies, and more partnership building with other jurisdictions. This accelerated pace of change is due to globalization and technological advances, and this evolving environment poses a major challenge to the public service. It will continue to challenge the innovative capacity of the federal public service, underscoring the need for flexibility and adaptability in the workforce.

    Middle managers are at a level where they can communicate up, down, and across organizations to respond to this horizontal cooperation requirement. Unfortunately, they are struggling right now to get the job done. Managers are a key resource in this constantly changing environment. We need them, and they need our support. The value of managers is well recognized through the public service. All deputy ministers agreed that middle managers are the key players in a modern and strategic public service and leaders who have the potential to make a real difference in achieving goals. They need to be recognized for the work they do in people management and in making the work environment a better place for the employees.

    One of the many challenges today is to retain good people. In the January 2001 Speech from the Throne the government pledged to make the necessary reforms to ensure that the public service is innovative, dynamic, and reflective of the diversity of the country, in order to attract, retain, and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians.

    Middle managers need the tools, systems, and processes to manage. They cannot wait six months to find the right people to do the job. They need the most qualified people as soon as possible. Bill C-25 provides for an increased flexibility in staffing and managing people, while reinforcing the safeguards now in place to protect against abuse of authority and to sustain a merit-based, non-partisan public service. A new approach to merit would improve managers' ability to appoint people quickly, when and where they are needed. The public service needs that. Right now competition for talent with the private sector and other governments is intense, and it will intensify with this increasingly tight labour market. We need to create an environment that is challenging and exciting, where middle managers can develop and use their abilities to the fullest.

    Bill C-25 provides for more coherent training and learning to help employees pursue professional development and better meet the corporate needs of the public service. With the proposed legislation, middle managers will have the opportunity to embrace more responsibility and increase their capacity, more responsibility in respect of delegation and the ability to take risks within a reasonable environment, to contribute more directly, and to solve problems as they arise, rather than have them solved at another level. These new responsibilities will come with an incredible accountability in learning how to do it well, with a layered framework of ethics and values.

    The proposed Public Service Modernization Act also provides the foundation needed for more constructive and cooperative labour-management relations, to support a healthy, productive workplace that attracts, retains, and develops the people it needs. The proposed legislation would set the stage for more constructive dialogue between managers and bargaining agents, who represent more than 85% of the public service workforce. It would improve collective bargaining through enhanced mediation and provide for more flexible methods to resolve conflicts.

    The Public Service Modernization Act provides the tools necessary for much-needed change. This is the first wide-ranging legislative reform of human resources management in over 35 years. With the global evolution and technological changes, it is needless to say that the current system is cumbersome and outdated. This modernization will allow the public service to operate more effectively in meeting the needs of Canadians in the 21st century. Our goal now is to continue building a cadre of managers who have the competence, confidence, and enthusiasm to take the public service into the future. We have made tremendous progress, and I am optimistic that we will continue to be successful.

    Mr. Chair, thank you. I now welcome your questions.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Ms. Duxbury.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury (Professor, School of Business, Carleton University, Director of Research, Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work, As Individual): Thank you very much.

    I too have been given instructions on what I should focus on. I won't, of course, be quite as brief as Mike, but I will be briefer for those of you who are redoing my testimony. I will try to keep it a little different this time from last.

    My areas of expertise are managing the new workforce, managing knowledge workers, professional employees, workplace well-being, managing change, and work-life balance. I'm coming here as an outsider. I'm not a public servant, and have no aspirations to be one, by the way. I'm speaking from data, so I'm completely unbiased. We did a 1991 national study on work-life balance and stress, where we had over 15,000 pubic servants. We also did a 2001 study funded by Health Canada, where we had altogether 33,000 Canadians, of whom 7,000 were federal public servants. What that allows me to do is make comparisons over time in attitudes within the public service, workloads, etc. It also allows me to make comparisons with the private sector and the not-for-profit sector, which is health care and education, by job type. So it allows me to make, with great confidence, statements about your workforce in respect of workloads, what they feel, etc. We also did very major studies in 1999 and 2001 on career development in the public service and career development in the high-tech sector. So again, I'm focusing on knowledge workers and know a fair bit. I've worked with a number of departments and private sector organizations over time, so I know the environment there.

    Briefly, then, what are my conclusions? You have a very good workforce, very committed, very loyal, but they feel underappreciated by the Canadians they serve and in many cases feel misunderstood and misrepresented in the press. The legislation is extremely important, but it's not important so much for the words. The legislation is important for what it symbolizes, that you, the political arm of the public service, recognize that the system is broken and that words alone are not going to change the system, that something dramatic has to happen.

    I'm not going to speak on what is and what is not in the act, though I would emphasize that it's necessary, and what's in there is a minimum requirement, but I want to caution you that this is only going to work if you believe this legislation is the beginning of a change process, not the change itself, if you don't put the legislation in and say, well, there you go, we've done something for those public servants, I guess they'd better be appreciative, and things will smarten up now. In fact, it's not a silver bullet, it is only the beginning of a long and arduous process, because the problem with the public service now is that you require cultural change.

    When I was testifying to the prior committee, they were saying, so how long, six months? I was saying, no, probably 10 years. And they said, after all we've done, are you saying we're at square zero? I would say, no, after all you've done, you're actually in a deep hole, and it's going to take you a couple of years to get to ground zero before you get people to believe. Public servants have gone through a number of change initiatives over the last several decades, and the attitude is, been there, got the t-shirt, got the mug, not going to play ball this time. The legislation is important because it symbolizes that you are serious, they are serious, everybody is serious this time.

    The other thing I would like to emphasize is that it is a cultural change. As an outsider, I see politicians as part of the culture of the public service. It's not what you say, but what you do that is going to really be important in the decade ahead in turning around the public service. I think it's important to recognize that there are huge costs to not doing this, employment costs associated with increased prescription drug use, absenteeism, morale problems. There are also going to be problems in your ability to recruit and retain good workers in the public service. If you don't do that, you and Canadians are not going to get the kind of service you want and need to do your job.

    Thank you.

Á  (1110)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for coming today.

    Mr. Nurse, on page four of your submission you say “Bill C-25, provides for an increased flexibility in staffing and managing people, while reinforcing the safeguards now in place to protect against abuse of authority and to sustain a merit-based, non-partisan public service.” You say the new approach would allow managers to appoint quickly and so on. This is somewhat similar to the justifications we've heard for getting to what I see on page 124 of the bill, appointments on the basis of merit. On the other side we have Linda Duxbury talking about stress and the culture, and I'm wondering how attacking the principle of merit would get to the culture. Where merit is perhaps not going to be recognized, it may or may not be in play for a competition, because according to the definition, the commission is to be satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualification for work, instead of necessarily being the best.

    To improve the culture, employees need to feel appreciated. How do we appreciate them beyond just symbols of giving them a mug or a certificate or whatever, putting an employee of the month on the bulletin board? Beyond that, excellence and merit must be recognized, that it actually counts for something, that developing merit for oneself, self-improvement, and the accomplishments really mean something, rather than just being part of a group.

    I want to go specifically to what the bill is trying to define in law, what merit means, and perhaps how that appears to be done for the agenda of the flexibility you talk about, Mr. Nurse, but may directly undermine the culture things Linda Duxbury is talking about.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I will be as precise as I can. It's a very far-reaching, very important question. I'll speak from many years as a public servant and a manager, but most recently as the champion for these middle managers, where I've had a great deal of interaction with them.

    They are suffocating under the system we have right now, they really are. They're trying their best, they are extremely dedicated, all employees are, they work very hard. We are in a very complex environment, and they're faced with a huge amount of work. I'm not even sure if it's really understood just how significant this workload is and the degree to which they're suffocating under it. The desire here is to provide any help we can. I think that's very important. You did talk about the mug and the recognition, but believe me, a mug, a handshake, anything is something they would appreciate today. There are elements of specific change that are proposed, but there's the element of the psychology of the recognition that there needs to be something done for people. I am talking about this group of people, and it's extremely important.

    The issue of merit I know is a complicated one, but from my very simple-minded point, it's giving a chance for managers, as efficiently as possible, to find the most qualified person available. They are very good judges of that, and believe me, in order to get their job done, they need the best they can find. That's what they're trying to do. At the present time--no fault of anyone--a long process has gone on in which various conditions and criteria have been established that have made the process we have right now very hard. So any effort to free up this process by still recognizing merit, by still allowing a process where there is staffing, that does prevent abuse, in other words, if there is abuse of authority, it needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.... There is the partnership with the labour unions and their interest in helping make this public service work well.

    So I think the combination of elements is a signal to these very critical people that they're going to be allowed to find the best qualified person available, which is what they want, they're going to be given training to get that done, they're going to be asked to work with their colleagues and the unions to move this ahead and do the checks and balances. There are very good processes in place to prevent abuse of power, which is extremely important, but fundamentally, at the end of the day, there is a signal. The people I'm talking to are going to try to help you every way we can. These are some of the steps, let's move ahead and give them a try. I think they're good and they are very similar to the kinds of things they have brought back to me through hundreds of forums we've organized.

    I know there are many elements to the definition, but it's about finding the best qualified person available, with an understanding that if you do not operate within the appropriate realm of expectation of values of the public service, you will be treated accordingly. In the meantime give them some opening, some removal from the incredible pressures they have right now to do that job. That's what it's fundamentally about.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I find your question interesting, because it assumes that right now people within the public service believe the hiring process is based on merit, and many do not. The definition of merit within the public service is a very confusing definition and has many embedded brackets. So it's the most meritorious, given that you live in this region, that you speak this language, that you are of this diversity group, etc. It goes back to what I say about the culture. In many cases the hiring practices now are cementing the idea that the most meritorious person is not getting the job. So I think it would be wrong to assume the current practices on merit are best practices, because they're not.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

    Mr. Nurse, you talked about suffocation, you talked about the tremendous workload. Perhaps you were also alluding to the length of time it takes to get one of these formal competitions done. We've heard testimony about it taking up to a year or more. You talk about general pressure. But then those are all administrative things, and an administrative problem should have an administrative answer. I don't see why you would undermine a hundred-year-old principle in order to satisfy workload pressure, timing in trying to get a competition done, and all of those administrative things. You fix them with an administrative response. If there's too much work, you get more employees or redefine what they should be doing and not doing. So I'd like you to respond to what I see here, a lot of administrative excuses for watering down the fundamental law and principle that's evolved over a hundred years.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I don't believe it is watering down, fundamentally. Managers are innovative. They will find solutions whatever systems are put in place. You've said it has been a long time. Layers upon layers of administrative process have come into place trying to ensure that there is merit. Nobody wants to do away with merit, but it becomes a matter of the employer setting expectations for what they need and finding the best qualified person as quickly as possible. You are talking about many months to get a person in place, and if you're looking to move outside the public service, you can add more time to that. It's a competitive environment. There are workload pressures. People need people right away. The public service is aging. There's going to be turnover.

    What this is attempting to do is create the opportunity for removing some of those processes, and I think the legislation is a strong signal in that direction. But it's not only removing the processes, it's putting money in place to train people on how to get this job done well and ensuring that they understand when they have this responsibility. In many cases now they don't, they follow a process. They're going to be given more responsibility. With this responsibility comes an accountability for making sure you operate within the merit principle.

    Again, I want to emphasize that there are several parts to this. There's the work with the labour unions. They're an important part of this, they represent the large body of people the people manage. I want to stress to you that the merit principle is there. It's subject to many considerations right now. It's the best qualified person available, and they are best able to define that.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I appreciate what you have to say, but you've repeatedly said “the best qualified”, and that phrase is nowhere in the bill. What the bill says is “the person to be appointed who meets essential qualifications”, not “best qualified” at all. It's a fundamental change here that I'm alluding to, and then you give me all these other peripheral reasons for why we have to do this. I'm saying, fix those peripheral reasons in a direct way, don't undermine the fundamental principle. Do you get the difference I'm talking about?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Professor Duxbury would like to respond, and then I have Monsieur Desrochers.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: You talk about a hundred-year-old principle. A hundred years ago Canadians were hewers of wood, fishermen, farmers, male breadwinners, with the wife at home. We've come a long way. We didn't have computers, we weren't competing in a global economy. We can't necessarily expect to fix principles that were extremely sound a hundred years ago with some Scotch tape and operational and administrative tinkering around the edges. I think it's very fundamental to recognize that for 50 years now Canada's been in a buyer's market, where there have been more good people than good jobs. We're moving into a global economy where there's going to be a severe labour shortage of knowledge workers, and that's what runs the public service. A hundred years ago the public service was an extremely attractive place to work, it was seen to be a prestige position. That's not necessarily the case now. So again, I think we can't say a hundred years ago we did this, without recognizing that the environment was so different a hundred years ago.

Á  (1125)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have on the first round? Seven minutes? Thank you very much.

    Mr. Nurse, Ms. Duxbury, welcome to this important meeting on Bill C-25. I'm taking over for my colleague, Robert Lanctôt, who is currently giving a speech in the House of Commons; this is indicative of the effective teamwork in the Bloc Québécois.

    I was a public servant for six years and I worked with middle managers in the adaptability field. Often middle managers are caught between decisions made by senior management and the demands of front-line workers.

    Mr. Nurse, do you feel that the proposed adaptability will be helpful to middle managers or do you think that just the opposite will occur, that it will, if I can use the expression, aggravate the sandwich effect that always exists within the public service between the senior manager and the unionized staff?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I think it will go a long way towards helping. My sense is that any signal from the government that talks about providing the opportunity for more flexibility within a set of principles will be a strong signal to them that we recognize the very issues you talked about. I think the changes that are proposed, the combination of delegation and flexibility with the training, the collaboration with the unions, and a recognition that if you don't operate within the purviews or expectations of the federal government, there will be the appropriate response will make a strong signal.

    But I want to echo Dr. Duxbury's remarks. This is a journey. I'm a long-time public servant, I've been working with these middle managers, and we are making a difference, but they are asking for a strong signal with some indication that not only are we saying there will be change, there will be change. I think it's a change that's very balanced and very reflective, but it's a journey, and it's going to take a number of years to respond. My concern is that we must move as quickly as possible, because time is of the essence here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Nurse, are your middle managers called upon to staff positions under their responsibility or are such duties given to senior management? We have seen that this can be cause for friction between middle managers, senior management and the unionized personnel.

[English]

    Mr. Michael Nurse: No, middle managers are responsible for staffing all employees, whether union or non-union. Their responsibility is making sure of the staffing of the positions within their responsibility area. They are now exercising that responsibility in an environment that is constraining, and the constraints do not necessarily uphold merit. They uphold some principles that in today's world are not going to help to make this public service effective.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When the middle manager fills out these staffing records, do they in turn have to be signed off by senior management before they are submitted to the unionized employee?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Nurse: There are various levels of delegation. Very often there is a need for an approval process from a senior manager. Sometimes there's an approval process from a staffing officer in the human resource branch. It varies a great deal in different organizations, but in most cases there's a need for a sign-off, not unlike the process in regard to financial responsibilities.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much, Mr. Nurse.

    I would now like to ask Ms. Duxbury a few questions. You said that your research involved 33,000 public servants. Is that accurate? You talked about stress. Perhaps I misunderstood. How many public servants were involved in your study?

[English]

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: In 2001 we did a study right across Canada, geographically representative, and we had almost 7,000 federal public servants. We had nine municipalities, and we had a government department from each province. So we had a public service sample. We had 37 private sector, representative across the sector, and we had not-for-profit, which was defined to be hospitals, school boards, universities, colleges, etc. We did measure things. We have a clinical measure of stress, we have depressed mood, we have workload, lots of things in it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: As far as stress is concerned, you focused a great deal on the section dealing with federal public servants. Nevertheless, during the course of your study, were you also able to detect any problems of harassment within the federal public service?

[English]

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Our purpose was not to look at harassment. Our purpose was more with work environment, workload, and balance issues. I know the federal public service survey itself had a big focus on harassment, but as a researcher, you tend to find what you look for, so if you have three pages of questions on harassment, you will probably find evidence of harassment. We did not look at harassment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Duxbury, perhaps you did not ask these questions directly, but based on the information that you obtained with respect to the abuse of power or psychological harassment, for example, were you able to determine that this problem existed amongst certain employees or employee groups within the public service?

[English]

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: There are two pieces of data I can look at. I don't know if you've heard of our document called “In the Voice of Canadians”. At the end of our survey we had 10,000 of the 33,000 people write comments, and we analysed them to find out what they were saying. It's not a phenomenon unique to the public service. I don't know if I would describe it as harassment, though some would. Your experience within the public service, as within the private and not-for-profit sectors, depends on who you work for, not where you work. You could call it abuse of power, but you could also call it neglect in many cases. If I speak to Mike's point, what is very interesting is that 10 years ago the management position in the federal public service was the best job. Over the decade we've eroded that, and they're to be everything to everybody. They're to be change agents, career developers, champions, mentors, do the staffing, and quite frankly, they don't have the time to do the people piece. So there is abuse of power, but you see it everywhere.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Duxbury and Mr. Nurse, why do managers have such a heavy workload? Is it because of budget cutbacks in both the provincial and federal public services, or is this simply an overload caused by the way duties are defined?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Nurse: The world today is more complex. Expectations today are much higher. Everything is moving more quickly. We are in the world of information technology. You experience that yourself. People send you an e-mail, and they are waiting at the other end for the response right away. Speed, complication, the need for more horizontal contact have placed the middle management responsibility at a much higher level of expectation. They are leaders, their people trust them, they're expected to do a lot more, and it's simply more complexity and more demands in today's world.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much, Mr. Nurse and Ms. Duxbury.

    Will I have a chance to ask further questions, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Yes, there will be a second round.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Ms. Duxbury and Mr. Nurse.

    Ms. Duxbury, you referred to when you appeared in front of a previous committee. I'm sure you were using that language loosely, but in fact, that was a subcommittee of this committee. Not to get too legalistic, but the subcommittee's work is on hold pending the review of this bill, and then I'm hoping the members in this committee support the continuation of that work, because I think, as both of you have said, this is a beginning. Our subcommittee is basically focused on some of the medium- to long-term issues to do with culture, structures, etc. I'm hoping we can get back at that, not that I'm looking for work, nor Mr. Forseth, but I think it's important that we keep at it.

    Mr. Nurse, you are an associate deputy minister, so I assume you're not considered a middle manager?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: No. As one person said, we're all middle managers, because we all report to someone, but in the formal definition, middle managers are the managers of people below the executive level. There are five levels, and then there are deputy ministers.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: But you've served as a middle manager.

    When our subcommittee met with a group of deputies and former deputies, we were told about an initiative that followed on the heels of a committee headed by a deputy minister looking at leadership. Are you familiar with that initiative, and are you part of that group?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: A number of committees were set up to look at leadership, recognition, training, about three years ago, if I recall correctly, I was aware of some of those, but I was not part of those committees.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: We've heard from the Public Service Commission that in some departments there is a human resource development plan, some departments are better at it than others. A human resource development plan presumably would look at staffing needs, training and development, and to the extent that you can do it, succession type planning in the public service, that sort of thing. What is your assessment? How's your department, for example? Do you have a very comprehensive human resource development plan?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: If I may say so with some pride, we are a large organization, about 14,000 people, very decentralized across the country, and we have a good human resource plan. It could be better, it's a work in progress, but it is structured around two things that I think are very critical. First is the need to identify how we're going to deal with the replacements that will be necessary, the need to identify learning opportunities for the people who are developing. Another big part of it is that we've established a very strong working relationship with our colleagues in the unions. We have union committees, we have committees in our regions, where our middle managers work with them, we expect the meetings to take place. I think we've set a lot of the tone for some of the issues that come out today. Some organizations are ahead of us in this area and other organizations are behind us.

    But I think I can speak from practical experience, as someone that's managed for a long time, and we have adopted some of these areas in trying to get people flexibility within an accountability environment, and when they have that flexibility, to ensure that they have the proper training and working with our colleagues in the unions in development of unique opportunities. So I think we've got experience in that area.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Good.

    I'd like to come back to you in a moment, but I'd like to ask Ms. Duxbury a question. You commented that the current system, in respect of merit, is maybe not the international benchmark or best practice. That was based, as I understood it, on some surveys you did. Perceptions are often very close to reality. No system is perfect. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the current system is not resulting in the best people doing the job?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. For example, fabulous students of mine who have applied for the public service jobs and would be incredible candidates have taken two jobs before they've actually been given an offer two years down the road. So my experience would suggest that any time you delay, you lose a lot of good candidates. There's also all the stuff I've heard about acting positions, where people get in, fill the acting positions for one, two, three years, do a very good job, get good performance appraisals, but don't get the position, because by merit, there has to be this long process.

    When I'm talking, though, about merit, I'm comparing what merit typically means in the private sector. I know it's not directly comparable, but you're going to be hiring from the same pool, so you can't be disadvantaged by imposing a huge number of extra requirements on merit that mean you won't get the best people. You won't even perhaps get some really good people.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, but on balance, do you think what's proposed in this legislation is an improvement?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I think anything that would speed up the process is an improvement. When you're dealing with knowledge workers, it's all very intangible anyway in deciding who is the best candidate. There are probably a dozen candidates who are equally good for the position. So to keep requiring extra additions to get the best in some cases, when it's a key position at the top of the organization, I think is worth the extra time, but I'm not sure it's an advantage as a general principle.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

    Mr. Nurse, any large organization may have problems, but I must say, as a former assistant deputy minister at the provincial level, we had our share of horror stories too from time to time, especially because we were largely decentralized, and with that goes some more risk, and unfortunately, sometimes people aren't prepared to balance those things out in the real world. But when you look at the HRDC, the job programs where we had all those difficulties, when we look at the sponsorship program, especially in Quebec, which was the subject of a lot of controversy, if we look at the firearms registry, these are certainly testing the limits of my patience with big organizations. You talked about the pressures on middle management. Are those the main drivers behind these sorts of difficulties? Are we spread too thin? Have we lost some management talent? Is there too much political interference? What is actually happening, do you think?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to this, probably many of the things you alluded to. Mistakes can be made, and you can make unintelligent mistakes and intelligent mistakes. I think we've made some unintelligent mistakes in some cases, we'll make some tomorrow, and we'll make some thereafter, but you're looking at 250,000 people and billions of dollars. The people I mainly deal with are across the country each and every day dealing with the public. It is phenomenal, and we do very well. I think they do this because they really believe in what they do. Will there be mistakes? Yes, but when they are discovered, they are brought forward pretty honestly, in my opinion. It's not easy to bring a mistake forward, it's a tough situation, but frankly, that's the only way we're going to learn in the future.

    I actually think the changes we're talking about here are giving flexibility to move ahead in being able to acquire the best people as quickly as possible. The delegations we're talking about here are two managers, and I know there are concerns about that, because of the points you raised, but 95% of the people carry on with what they're doing.

    There are also within that accountability framework processes in place that say, if you do it wrong, if you abuse your authority, if you say, I'm going to get the one I want, as opposed to the person I think fits the qualifications, there is recourse. I think we're trying to give people the tools to get the job done. I fundamentally believe that if you expect the best from them, you'll get the best. Will there be mistakes made? Yes, there will, but they are minimal, and we learn from them. While that happens, this machine operates. We have to find some signals to say we want to help them operate that machine more efficiently and more effectively.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: It goes to what we were talking about in the subcommittee. It is a big cultural issue, and if you shoot the messenger all the time, or if you don't listen to the messenger, people don't want to be the messengers or people lie--end of story. It's a big cultural issue. If you talk risk taking, but you punish mistakes, people don't take risks. While I believe a lot of it is the workload, I believe a lot of it has evolved over time into a very difficult culture, and that's why I say it's the behaviour of everybody involved in the system that's going to make the difference.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    Thank you, both, for being here.

    I would like to begin with Professor Duxbury. Your credentials state that you are the director of research for the Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work. I know that isn't the specific emphasis in this particular bill, but are you satisfied that in Bill C-25 there is adequate initiative taken in order to equalize the competition between men and women in the workplace?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: That's a very interesting question. There are two trends over time. A decade ago women were way more stressed than men. Women couldn't balance as well, there were real problems. Employment equity has fixed that, and now men are equally stressed, not because women are better off now, but because we've messed up our male population as well. Everybody's stressed. Men are now doing more around the home, they're picking up more of the slack, and because we've equalized things in certain respects, but not dealt with the systemic causes of the problem, we now have problems with men being more unbalanced.

    The other thing is that many of the gender differences we see in the research are actually attributed to differences in job. Men and women in many ways have very similar experiences. The problem is, of course, that women tend to be compressed into the lower half of that triangle and men in the middle to upper half. The bill, to me, is fairly gender-neutral. I don't see big issues there with respect to gender.

    Mr. Ken Epp: You indicated that men have become more stressed because--properly so--they are now taking more of the responsibility at home. Are women more stressed because--properly so--they are now taking more responsibility for management in the workplace?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: That's exactly what has happened. The boundary between work and life has blurred for both genders. The other thing that really is playing a role in the increased workloads and stress levels of men is elder care. Elder care, rather than child care, is determined by whose parent it is; motherhood is motherhood, but with elder care, it's your mother. We're seeing some very dramatic shift actually in stress levels. The stress levels of men have gone up 18 percentage points over the decade; women's have only gone up by about 4.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Interesting.

    I wanted to ask both of you about the workload being excessive. I'm not sure Bill C-25 or any bill the government could bring forward would address the issue of workload. What has caused the excessive workload? Second, what do we do to try to alleviate that problem?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Michael Nurse: Not to be too repetitive, the best definition I can give is that it is a more complex world today. To carry out a particular function, the interest of people and the impact of the work you do have grown a great deal. People are faced with more complexity in doing their work. Also, employees in the public service are far smarter, far better educated, and their expectations are high. So we need attention to interaction, ensuring that you bring along the organization. It's not the command and control system we had a number of years ago, it's much more interactive, which is good, but it takes time. All of these elements add time, and time is really a very important element.

    I think many managers I am the champion for--I don't pretend to represent them--are simply looking for training help. They are looking for opportunities to have delegation responsibilities, to make decisions within a certain set of accountabilities that allows them to do their job, with the full expectation that if they don't do it properly, they'll be held accountable.There are elements of this that send a signal that we want to give them some relief. Will it eliminate the workload problem? Absolutely not. It's a reality we face. I don't think it's only in the public service, I think it exists at all levels, including the members around this table, but we have to respond. I believe it's important to send a signal.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Workload is excessive at the management level, workload is not excessive throughout the public service. There is a distinction here. If you compare by job type across sectors, you see managers have higher stress in the public service and have higher workloads than in any other sector. That is not true of clerical, administrative, technical support staff; their workloads actually are comparable with or slightly less than other sectors.

    If I look at why the management job is really the one with the big workload issues within the federal public service, I see several things. One is the promotion process itself, how they pick who are going to be managers. Right now the only way to get up in the public service is to become a manager. For many of these people, that's not what they're interested in, that's not their skill set. We don't give them the training to do the job. Because they're dealing with more non-routine work and knowledge workers, the span of control should actually be narrowed. We haven't adjusted that. We still assume that work being done is routine, when it's not. I would say those are very big. And I think we need to recognize things like technology. The public service is unique, in that it manages right across Canada, so there's a huge demand to manage using e-mail, virtual teams. All of these add complexity, which add workload.

    I see two solutions. You either add more managers, middle managers in particular, and I think that would solve the problems all the way down through the system, or you need to give more support to do the routine parts of their job, download some of the things that they're doing. Many managers are doing their own photocopying, their own courier stuff. That doesn't leave time to do some of the jobs only they can do.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

    Does either of you have a specific recommendation for any change in this bill?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I do not.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: That's all right.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: No.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. Now we have that out of the way, we don't have to worry about it.

    The Public Service Commission is a major player in all of this. I think everybody agrees that we want to move forward with some legislation that's going to provide the tools. Not only do we need to pass this thing, we have to monitor it, shepherd it, make sure it stays on track. The Public Service Commission, though, is a unique institution. I wonder if you could briefly comment on what exactly it is relative to other things, because I have a feeling it has more of a non-operational role. Could you comment on what the Public Service Commission is or should be?

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I have opinions about the Public Service Commission, not necessarily ones I would share. I get very confused as to what the role of the Public Service Commission is.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I do as well.

    Michael.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: They have a unique role in their reporting to Parliament. In my mind, they are to ensure the expectations of merit, of how public service managers operate within the values and ethics of the public service. They are responsible for ensuring that when people are brought on, it's within the norms and values of the public service. They have a very important role in that area. What I would separate in the role is ensuring that this is done, as opposed to doing. I think that's a very significant difference. They must retain that responsibility.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: In the bill there is one area in which it appears that they are being extended operational responsibilities, and that is with regard to audit. I'm wondering if it's an appropriate function, given their status. For instance, if there were a meeting of deputy ministers, the representation of the Public Service Commission would also be invited to that meeting, because they're not just an agent, they are, I guess, almost an agency. Agencies are more for the non-operational responsibilities, and I thought that maybe this audit function was a little too operational for their mandate.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I don't know if this will surprise or not surprise members, but for a senior manager, audit is extremely important. I mentioned earlier that mistakes are made, and the ability to have professionals identify what those are and present them to us, with opportunities for rectifying the mistakes, is very important. With the passing of this legislation, if it does pass, there is an opportunity for them to ensure that the basic responsibilities they see in ensuring that we have a fair and equitable public service are met, and where they're uncertain or unhappy about that, they can go in and do an audit.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I have one last question, and it has to do with the relationship between the Public Service Commission and Parliament. They have an annual report, and they have asked to be able to produce reports more frequently if they believe it's necessary and in their purview. I think that's a good recommendation, one supported by the Auditor General, according to her testimony. Do you have any suggestions for us, since we're not here amending the bill, but we do have to build bridges and relationships, as to how Parliament can best develop or nurture the relationship with the Public Service Commission to respect the lines of jurisdiction and authority?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I don't know if I have any good ideas. The only idea I have, from my own experience, is to ensure that our lines of communication are open, that there is a certain set of expected measures that people actually understand. In other words, when reports are prepared, people should understand what the reports say. Reports can get very complicated, so we need a clear ability to communicate in either official language what they see, so parliamentarians can have an honest look at what the results are. I can't do much better than that.

  (1200)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Nurse.

    Professor.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I have two concerns. First, if the Public Service Commission's reporting etc. slows the process down and is seen to be a barrier to moving forward on some of these, I think there's more danger in including a lot of these things than by not. Further, I'm not sure it's important to increase the reporting of the Public Service Commission, but I think it's important that you build bridges with all departments. If the agency you're focusing on is the Public Service Commission and that is seen to be something that's filtering information, I think that might not be the best approach to have. Those are just cautions.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Professor.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I would like to say that I am sorry to have missed your statement. Ms. Duxbury, I have the notes from my assistant and, according to these notes, C-25 contains the minimum required. However, when you replied to Mr. Szabo, who asked you whether or not we should be amending or adding things to the bill, you did not propose anything. You will understand my great surprise. I would like to understand. There's a total disconnect between my notes and what I have just heard.

    Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, you represent working women. However, I do not see anything whatsoever in the bill that deals with harassment, whereas the survey published in December 2002 indicated that one out of five people were victims of psychological harassment or some other form of harassment in the public service. And here we are talking about a relatively high number of women.

    I am surprised that you do not say that these are necessary additions. We are told that, in negotiations between unions, managers and the public service, no one ever manages to have this included in a collective agreement. I'm therefore surprised that you did not raise this issue.

    In addition, there are no doubt a lot of women in the public service who would like to be protected. We are here to protect the public monies of all Canadians who wish to come here but do not have a framework law. Moreover, this bill makes no mention of the protection to be afforded to whistle-blowers.

    I could go on at great length, because as far as I'm concerned, curiously enough, I have a lot to say about the matter. I like the principle behind the bill, but no changes have been made for 35 years and therefore it is time that some were made. But will there really be a change in culture? I highly doubt it, particularly when I hear the witnesses say that public servants are no longer even taking any notes which, when attached to the files, would enable us to have access to the information, and would ensure that the work be done properly. I'm giving you a lot of information, but this is simply to tell you how surprised I am that there is nothing that you wish to either add or change.

    I would like to end on a humorous note. Mr. Nurse, I would like to congratulate you on your title as ministerial champion of middle managers. But you surely were not at Public Works at that time.

    I would like to hear your comments.

[English]

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Would I, if I were writing the legislation, do things differently? Yes, but do I feel that it's my place to make substantive changes? I would go so much farther than what is here that I don't think there's any chance that some of the things I would recommend would ever go through. For example, I think the accountability framework has to be much greater, and if I dare say it, the accountability would also be included at the ministerial level. Those are not popular kinds of recommendations, so I decided that perhaps I don't need to say these.

    What do I think needs to be done? I think parliamentarians need to recognize that perhaps in some cases their behaviour is contributing to the issue as well, that the problem will not be solved simply by focusing attention on the public service and legislation on the public service, and that there needs to be a mutual accountability between public servants and parliamentarians if we really want to move forward. In other words, there has to be a recognition that you're part of the problem as well as part of the solution. While I have not thought about how that would be actually done, I think abusive ministers should be removed. I've been told by many people that's the job of the clerk, that's the job of the prime minister, and you don't need that kind of legislation, but I, working with a number of departments, know problems do exist. When you talk about harassment, it is not just a question of being harassed by other people within the public service, it's a question of being harassed by Canadians, it's a question of being harassed by the media, it's a question of being harassed sometimes by the people you're providing the service to. It's very difficult to do that at a legislative level.

    As I said, I believe this is a necessary step, but it's certainly not sufficient, and we have to work on management practices. I guess that would be what I want to do, focus on management practices, as opposed to over-legislating, which is what I would be afraid of if we went too far. If I had my druthers, I would put accountability in there upwards, as well as downwards.

  (1205)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Nurse, have you anything to add?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I may have misunderstood, but I felt most of the question was directed to my colleague.

    On the reference to Public Works and Government Service Canada, I've been with the department for a number of years in my role as associate. Prior to my role as assistant deputy minister, real property services, I was asked by the then clerk to be the champion for middle managers, which was a corporate responsibility I took on that really had no reference to the department and more reference to all of government. That's all I can say.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Duxbury, it's good to see you back, and it's interesting to hear the comments, Mr. Nurse. I think they chose the right person to champion middle managers when they decided you would take on that position. Clearly, you feel very passionately about that issue.

    It's interesting when you talk to different people about how we got where we got, and we finally have legislation going forward, but you both have said it has to be more than symbolic. At least there's a change in legislation, but what happens then? It's not just a question of changing the legislation, it's a question of follow-up by parliamentarians, as well as others. How would you see that process happening?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I think the real work starts then. A tremendous effort has gone in. Any time you bring a bill forward for consideration, there is a lot of work that goes into it, but I would say, from the public service point of view, if the bill is passed and we do have legislation to work with, the real work starts, because we have to take the elements that are offered to us by this and begin to exercise within the expectations of the philosophy of this new bill.

    Getting down to specific practices, there is an opportunity to indeed sub-delegate, within an appropriate accountability environment, and delegate to deputy heads and managers the opportunity to hire and staff people. There is an expectation that managers will establish a stronger relationship and a stronger aspect of co-development with their union colleagues at the working level. There is an expectation that problems will be solved at the front line, rather than getting into an endless process, whether it's appeals of staffing or harassment issues. There is an expectation that a reasonable sum of money--I was going to say a great deal of money, but it's all relative--be set aside to provide training for people to get ready for that. Then there is an expectation that I and my colleagues, as deputy heads, the commission, the Treasury Board, and everyone will say, we have it now and we'll use it or lose it.

    We've had several cracks at this over the last number of years. We may now reach a stage where we have a bill, we can actually exercise some real change, people feel the affect of that change like fresh air and respond accordingly. If there is a small percentage who see this as the wrong kind of opportunity--and I don't believe that--there are checks and balances that deal with those people. When we expect the best from this group of people, we will get the best. I think within five years after this, with that kind of change, we'll start to see a real difference in how employees are reacting, the kind of employees we bring on board, the ability to respond to many priorities and initiatives of the public service. I think we'll have a public service that is fleet of foot, though with the same accountabilities and the same structure in place. I think people feel they'll have more tools in their briefcases to get the job they have to do done, as opposed to feeling they don't have those tools, as they do now.

  (1210)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: The passing of Bill C-25 will hopefully give them the tools to feel that kind of spirit.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: Yes. There's a psychology to everything. There is a certain sense of belief that this will not happen, there is a skepticism--it may be cynicism, but I prefer skepticism. There is a certain feeling that we've tried this before. I believe we will get some change, and I think, when it happens, the alarm will go up: we have it now, so let's do something with it, we have something to prove, so that seven years from now, when this is reviewed, we'll say, darn, this was a good thing; we've moved ahead, and here are the things we've done. I've listed just some, but not to take too much time, there are hundreds of opportunities we can exercise with this right now. That would be a signal from the government, all levels of government, including yourselves, a very important part of it, that we're ready to make this change and move ahead.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Mr. Nurse, you mentioned you that would hope to see a lot of change in five years, and then you suggested a seven-year review. The bill calls for a seven-year review. Do you have any thoughts on whether that might be better as a five-year review?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: No. I did a self-correction as I was talking. I tend to work in five-year cycles with budgeting, but then I realized it was seven. You need time, as I said, so seven is perfectly fine, in my opinion. I also say, by the way, it's reasonable to look in seven years and ask those tough questions.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay.

    Professor?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I'd like to go back to what Mr. Forseth said a while ago. There are administrative things that have to happen after the bill that are as crucial as, if not more crucial than, the bill, in my opinion. I think the public service, to really see change, has to define, in a whole bunch of categories, behaviour they want to see. The public service tends to talk about the values of the public service, and that's great, but we need to articulate how those values are manifested, then we have to measure them, and we have to make for real accountability with them, in hiring, in harassment-type behaviour, in a whole bunch of things. Quite honestly, you won't get the culture change if it's seen that there are no consequences for misbehaving.

    This bill identifies a number of key areas and it gives more power to put the behaviour with regard to these things in place afterwards and track it. With the responsibility for hiring come consequences if you don't do it appropriately etc. So I believe it's the administrative pieces that will accompany this bill that will make or break the changes, but the symbolic piece of this bill, as I said before, is critical.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Professor.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

    To carry on, you did talk about how values are manifested. Certainly, in public service renewal we want our brightest and best to consider that working in the public domain is an honourable and worthwhile career, so we can attract the very best and retain them. Earlier you mentioned, alluding to merit, that there is a provision for hiring a temporary person or an acting person. They may be in that position for a while, and then, all of a sudden, there's a competition, and they don't get the job. You felt that perhaps their merit is not being recognized. But I'll give you the flip side of the coin.

    We have a manager who actually has a discriminatory mindset and wants to hire a friend, or there's maybe some consideration given to an individual, and so that person is hired as a temporary, and they remain in that position for a time. Now we have provision that if they function in that position for a length of time, they're going to be made permanent. So the other people working in the section have no opportunity to apply. This may be for a local manager's job. That was really the senior manager's plan: he didn't want anybody in the local section to even have an opportunity. There may be some very talented people there, but for some other circumstances or considerations, under the table or whatever, he wants to favour. So we go through the temporary appointment, then that person becomes operationalized and permanent; through that process, all those local people have never had even an opportunity to apply. You can imagine what effect that has throughout the workplace, how discouraging that is, and the distrust that puts into the system. Never was merit per se allowed to operate for the appointment of that individual, because they didn't go through some kind of merit competition for the temporary business. All the others who were expecting maybe some job growth or an opportunity to apply to become the local manager never even had a chance.

    What I'm saying is that at that point, where a temporary employee is going to perhaps be appointed as a permanent local manager, there has to be some competition, where, then, the principle of merit is going to come into the system and be applied. Can you help us with that kind of dynamic?

  (1215)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: The scenario you've just described takes place under the current system, which reinforces my contention that the current system is broken and merit doesn't mean merit within the current system. Many people perceive that job descriptions are written with a candidate in mind, so that only one person can fill it, and therefore they're the most meritorious. I think the real key is to actually give managers the responsibility, and then measure their delivery on that job, and if they don't do the job in getting the best candidate fairly, they're removed from the management role. That's the administrative piece that accompanies this bill. Until we give the accountability to the manager and we do it using this bill, we can't take any steps for a manager who's mishandling it, because the way merit is defined, it's hard to actually catch.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: This is my problem with the bill. The definition of merit is in part a reasonable opportunity to even apply for a position and have your merit assessed. Merit means nothing if you're never even allowed to put it on the table. In paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act you have “the Commission is satisfied that the person be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed”. Perhaps we could add “and has most merit” within a context. We can say in the philosophical context, yes, we have merit, but if we don't have any place where it's actually going to be operationalized, it might as well not be there.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I'm just curious how you would operationally define most merit within a context.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Does not every competition basically do that? If you're interviewing six people, you have some kind of objective measures, some point scores, some standard questions, so that in the interviews you're going to be asking basically the same questions of all six applicants.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: But in reality, you've got six things that are all important, and person A is excellent at one and two and not so good at three and four. Eventually, you end up with six candidates all of whom would be really good at the job, all of whom are meritorious, and then it comes down to intangibles. That's the reality in hiring knowledge workers. Many of these things are very fuzzy.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: That's why we have categories such as personal suitability and others that are assessed, but at least there is a process there whereby merit is being assessed and is in play. What I'm talking about is that in this current definition it looks like we're going to develop a regime where a person's merit never even gets on the table.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I don't see that.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I don't either. The only thing I can offer is personal experience, and in my role--and I want to stress that I'm here in my role--I talk to hundreds and hundreds of excellent managers who, as I said, are in your various constituencies and ridings. When some of them are hiring people through the temporary process, they're doing it because they haven't been able to do it any other way. They are desperate to get someone to do the job. I know there's a contrary feeling, but people do apply merit. I used to refer to it as opening and closing the door. I'm really not sure I've met anyone who does not say, I want to get the best person I can to do the job. Many times what they're saying is, I need that person tomorrow.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, and managers, like everybody else, are very innovative, and they've found solutions. In effect, they are trying to get around processes and the system in place right now, and they are exercising these judgments on the basis of looking for the most merited person they can get. When the process catches up, obviously, this person may have gained some experience and may have shown some ability and some merit, but I believe they apply merit. I think merit is implied in everything they do. It is a recipe for disaster if you do not try to get the best person, especially in the knowledge economy, where you have a limited number of people, and if you don't pick the best person, you're going to feel it right away.

    I think this process turns it around the other way and says, you are accountable within an accountability framework, and you're going to be allowed to do this. There are certain expectations. You have had co-development with your colleagues in the labour unions, who established certain expectations. You go out and do this, and if you don't get the right person and get the job done, you're going to pay a price for it. Go out and get the person. We're going to give you the tools, we're going to give you the training to allow you to understand what merit really means, if you don't understand it--and I think they do. If they don't get it done, it will affect their ability to deliver. Right now they're saying, I can't get anybody, so I'm going to find whatever means I can. They'll contract if they have to. Managers just need people to get their job done, that's their lifeblood, that's what they're trained to do.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm just concerned that the word innovation is a euphemism for beating the system. You outlined administrative problems that undermine the merit principle. If you've got an administrative problem, in that you can't get people hired, you've got to fix the administration of that, not undermine the law. That was the earlier point I was making.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I respect the point.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Could I just add that I think there's a real danger. A small percentage of managers probably do abuse the system, but you don't make the legislation for the small percentage of abusers, you make it for the majority of good managers. It only makes sense for them, especially if they're accountable for the performance of those who report to them, to hire somebody who can do the job.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Madam Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thanks very much.

    My question is along the lines of Monsieur Lanctôt's. Is the bill perfect, or are there some changes you would like this committee to recommend?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: Nothing is perfect. What we have in front of us is a bill that is a reflection of an immense amount of consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders. There's been a long, very challenging process where people didn't want to do certain things, so this is the result of a degree of compromise. I think what we've got is a product that everyone was ready to take forward for your consideration. On that basis, I'm happy. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it will be more perfect than nothing at all, and that's really my point. It is going to provide instruments that will allow my constituency, this group of people I'm the champion for, over the next period of time to believe they're going to be able to do the job, because they feel they're getting that support, and I actually believe they're going to be accountable for doing their job more effectively and efficiently, and I think we will feel those results.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Of course I don't think it's perfect. I was part of the Fryer commission, I was on the management side. We hashed out for two and a half years what our recommendations were going to be, and it was a quid pro quo. I gave something, I got something. I don't feel it's fair for me now to come in here and say, even though we reached this negotiation, I'm going to go back on that and say I want this. I feel that in many cases this bill is not perfect, and it is the result of many compromises on a number of different avenues. You can't second guess. It's like a stack of cards: take out one card and it all falls down. I don't want to touch any of my labour management cards, because I got things, as well as giving up things.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: As you know, this is a new committee, and hopefully, an ongoing relationship will develop on government operations. Obviously, you feel, with respect to management practices and culture change, there are some things we should be vigilant about as parliamentarians, and a partnership, you think, should evolve in terms of two and two makes five.What kinds of things do you think parliamentarians should be looking to? Are there measurements to show that we're getting there? With recruitment and retention, is there a way we should be measuring how many of your students are applying to come to the public service? How will we know this is the best possible employer? How would we, as parliamentarians, measure that? How do we find out whether it's the creative innovative ones who want to come here or they all go to the private sector? How would you sort this out?

    Second, ISO has management practices and those kinds of things. How does this fit with what would be an ISO management practice in respect of productivity, culture, and all of those sorts of things?

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: There are a huge number of very simple indicators you can use for recruitment and retention. For example, how long does a position remain unfilled? How long do people, especially younger people, stay with the public service? Do exit interviews and find out why they're leaving. I have a grad student who's doing generational differences in work values. He did a web-based survey, and the deputy of the Treasury Board agreed that the public service would participate. It's very hard to find public servants under the age of 30--that's another story--but over 1,000 people filled in the web-based survey within four days, so I'll be able to give you some information on this group and how they feel. There are a number of things like that that are fairly simple to do.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Should there be mandatory exit interviews?

  (1230)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Yes. Not only should there be mandatory exit interviews, you should use the information. Right now it depends on the luck of the draw whether there is an exit interview, and in many cases the data are not used. It should be a regular thing. To go back to harassment, if you're finding out people are leaving not because of the public service, but to get away from a bad boss, that should fold into the promotion process, a whole bunch of things. That's all of the administrative piece that must go in here as well.

    How you look as a public service depends on who you want to compare yourself to, but Britain, New Zealand, and Australia are making very significant changes in how they manage their public service. So I would hope that we can be considered best practice as well in that area.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: How do you make an exit interview mandatory, and how do you make sure the information becomes part of the learning.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: That would be Treasury Board, would it not?

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Should it be in the bill?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I may have missed your point. I don't really believe those kinds of procedures need to be put within the bill.

    As to good management, sometimes you hear impressions, and then the reality comes from actually talking to people. A good sample of exit interviews to be turned around as information back to management is probably one of the best feedbacks you can get. People are going to be pretty direct and will probably talk about the issues that concerned them and led to their departure. You also may get some good suggestions: if you want me to come back or if you want my advice, this is the kind of thing you should consider. Feedback of that kind is gold. I think there should be an expectation of that. In our department we have a thing we call un bilan social. You put your hand on the engine of the organization from an HR perspective. It's almost the equivalent of the budget review. Whether it's grievances, appeals, feedback from exit interviews, samples of the words, the worst and the best, and things like that, they're just fabulous in coming back. You need this kind of re-enforcement on a regular basis. That's just good management, in my mind.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I should look at some real concrete things too. Prescription drug use is a really good one. EAP use is also an excellent one. Those are not things that are people's impressions, and I know they have gone up substantially. Those are solid indicators.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Just the actual numbers, right? You can take the identifiers off and use it as a management evaluation.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: It's regularly used as a management tool.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: How many on antidepressants, how many on anxiety medication, etc.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Yes, exactly.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: It's really a trend thing. You don't need to get into people's confidentiality. The employee assistance program is wonderful. You can even get a little sense of what the visits are about. Some of them deal with elder care, for example: I don't have enough time to do my work because I have this kind of challenge. So you start to get some real trends. Then, as management, you go back and say, how can we help to manage those trends? People worry about day care, but elder care is becoming a big challenge. Those are the kinds of things I mentioned. The EAP is one of the indicators we look at. Without breaking confidentiality, you can learn a lot from those kinds of trend analysis.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much, Madam Bennett.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I can appreciate that we are trying to make the staffing and appointment process more flexible and speedier, but this is about resetting the pendulum. You had a very rigid framework, and by introducing the notion of merit without any specifications, without any criteria, you will make the process very subjective and not more objective.

    I don't have to tell you that if someone is not in the manager's good books, he may have serious problems. In your opinion, would it be possible to improve the bill so as to avoid going to extremes and making the process so subjective that we'll have all of these problems, including the problem of formal challenges? Now there are only two grounds for challenge : abuse of power and refusing to conduct an assessment in the individual's preferred official language. This is both restrictive and exhaustive. Essentially, only one criteria remains : the abuse of power. You know as well as I do how difficult it is to prove that this is the case.

    So I would like to raise two issues. Why not adopt a process that would include merit, but, in addition, very specific guidelines? The unions have told us that we should be calling for a negotiation with respect to the development of qualification criteria and the notion of merit. Otherwise, an individual or a small group of people could easily... We want something that is non-partisan, independent, something that is being done properly, but because we are doing this so quickly, we are going to the other extreme. As was said earlier, this may create a real problem if we want to improve the public service.

  (1235)  

[English]

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: I understand the concerns, but I think the really important thing is having capable managers, and that goes back to the administrative piece. You have to pick the right people, you have to train them, you have to give them time to do the job, and then you have to make it worth their while. If you have capable managers, they want to have capable employees. So again, if you put too much wording around it, it's going to be interpreted as saying you don't trust managers to do their job, and that could flip us back the other way, it could move us into cynicism. I think we have to recognize that while some people may abuse their power, this will not be the norm. There are always going to be a percentage of employees at all levels who will try to take advantage of the system, but you don't manage for the minority, you manage for the majority.

    I don't know if that answers your question, but I'm concerned that in your desire to make sure merit is there, it may suggest that you don't trust the managers to do the best job they can.

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I can only echo that. From a very practical point of view, whatever system you have, whatever checks and balances you have, there may be some people, and it's a very tiny minority, who are going to take advantage of the system.

    I honestly believe a lot of managers now feel the system they have is out of their hands. It's something they try to get into, but other people determine whether they can do something, other people decide how long something takes. It's out of their hands now, and what they do is look for other methods, some of which were identified here today, to get the job done. What we're trying to do, as I understand it, is give them that authority to get the job done. I think there are quite a number of checks and balances in this process, not the least of which is their basic continuation in the job if they do not perform it according to those expectations. We're saying, now we're going to give it to you to let you do it, here are a certain set of circumstances to work within, but do it. Right now it's like an assembly line that's beside them, that's my best analogy, and what they're saying is that they can't use that, and if they need to get the job done, they'll find another means. Give it to them and simply let them make some decisions within that framework, and you will see that 99.999% of those decisions will be based on merit, will be based on getting the right person in the job at the right time to get the job done. I think you will see a palpable difference in the views of people, feeling they now are part of a public service that wants to make change and get the job done in this very dynamic environment.

    If I can make one appeal, it is a tough environment, an unforgiving environment. Right now the general reaction is, we're a bunch of screw-ups, and it's not true. We celebrate the mistakes, but we really sort of say, ah, shucks, when things go well. As I said, thousands of people simply make it happen every day, but they do it in spite of the process in some cases. What we've got to do is give them the tools, and they will not disappoint you, I am sure of that.

  (1240)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Monsieur Lanctôt.

    Mr. Szabo, final question.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: You're talking about a group of employees who are in the political environment, and since bashing politicians is now a national pastime, I don't think you're ever going to win, but you may not lose as much by having this bill.

    Probably the most dramatic example of culture development is that you have given, Mr. Nurse. Getting a warm body in a seat turned out to be a lot easier by getting contract or short-term, rather than long-term, full-time, employees. The degree to which that has occurred shows how deep those roots are. So given the culture in which the public service has been operating for some time without change--it's unfortunate that change has taken so long, but we're now making changes--do you believe there is a sufficient, demonstrable, exciting point of departure that will get everybody to move along together, or will this not be embraced as easily as maybe it should be? And should we try to have the big kick-off that will convince everybody that we're all on side?

    Mr. Michael Nurse: I'll express a personal point of view. In my job, as I said, I'm invited to speak to forums of middle managers. One of the things we've done is bring middle managers together into forums, and I speak to them. The question has been, is this change really going to happen? And I said, yes, I believe, with sufficient iformation, sufficient consultation, the right people have come together to recognize this change, but when this change happens, you have to make us proud in what you're doing.

    I believe it is important to communicate that there is a resounding recognition that this bill is an understanding that there was a need for change after many years and that with this change there is going to be increased accountability, with this change will come training and development money to support them in this area, with this accountability there's the expectation of more partnerships with our colleagues in the unions. I think there needs to be a very strong communication to this effect, because communication is an imperfect business. A few of us will hear that, we live with it every day, but when you talk about 40,000 people out there, I've been doing it for five years, and maybe 20,000 said, oh?--that kind of reaction. Communication is extremely important. It is very important to present the positive aspects, but also the expectations that come with this, expectations that can only be met by the people we're going to give the responsibility to. That's beyond deputy heads. That's managers, executives--and indeed, employees, but I'm here talking about the managers. So yes, communication is going to be very important.

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Is it enough, though? As I said, it's a start, but it's only a start. Is communication crucial? Yes. Are words enough? No. It's the behaviour over time that will make the difference and will make a break. Will people be excited? I think, quite honestly, they'll be surprised if it passes. I think they will be pleased, but I don't know that excited would be the word. They will wait to see what difference it makes to them. They will wait to see the first key make-or-break behaviour. What happens to a manager who doesn't hire on merit? If nothing happens, you're just cementing same-old, same-old. If you don't actually follow through with some of these things, if the behaviour is the same despite the legislation, I don't think there is going to be any difference.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, this last comment really concerns me, that they will be surprised if it happens, as opposed to something like, there's cautious optimism. If this is true, if there are people who are going to sit back with a cynical starting point, we are set up for a very difficult, and maybe disastrous, time in the public service. This is just not acceptable. We can't afford a false start. If anybody in the public service thinks it's going to be acceptable to have the attitude “I'll be surprised if you can pull it off”, they're not on side. You have to be with us, or maybe you ought to reconsider your future.

  (1245)  

    Ms. Linda Duxbury: Surprise is my word, so you can't get upset with them. I do think you cannot underestimate the level of cynicism out there. If you go into it aware that there is some cynicism, maybe that's a good thing. I think that's important.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much for coming before the committee this morning.

    I would like to remind members that we're back in this room at 3:30 this afternoon.

    Meeting adjourned.