:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and honourable members of the Committee.
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the work of the Public Service Commission — the PSC —, more specifically the " 2008-2009 Public Service Commission Annual Report " and five audit reports, all of which were tabled in Parliament on October 9.
The annual report covers the third year of operation under the Public Service Employment Act, or PSEA. In 2008-2009, the PSEA applied to 82 organizations representing more than 208,000 public servants, casual employees and students. We have seen steady growth in those organizations.
We haev also seen a high level of hiring and staffing activity. The high rate is attributable to growth in the Public Service, retirements and a great deal of internal movement.
We concluded from the various monitoring exercises we carried out in 2008-2009 that the fundamental values of merit and impartiality are generally respected across the Public Service.
Still, the PSC is concerned about significant new signs that we need to be more vigilant in order to ensure that in the years ahead, Canadians will continue to be served by a Public Service that is impartial and merit-based.
One of the main expectations regarding the PSEA was a reduction in staffing times. However, we have not realized the expected gains in terms of how fast advertised processes to staff permanent positions are completed. Inefficient staffing has a direct impact on the delivery of quality programs and services to Canadians and encourages managers to hire casual and temporary staff for permanent positions.
It currently takes an average of 23.5 weeks to staff a position. That number can easily be reduced by 30% in the current system if human resources management as a whole is improved.
The PSC shares the concerns raised by the members of your committee regarding the inapporpriate use of temporary workers to fill permanent Public Service positions on a long-term basis. We are moving forward on a study to look at the issue and determine how these practices might circumvent the requirements of the PSEA.
[English]
I would now like to turn to employment equity.
We are making progress in the appointment rate of visible minorities into the public service through advertised positions, reaching 18.8% in 2008-09. This rate is greater than the workforce availability of visible minorities. The same holds true for women and aboriginal peoples. However, the public service is not sufficiently attracting persons with disabilities, and their recruitment rate continues to be lower than their workforce availability.
This year the PSC observed new challenges with respect to protecting the value of non-partisanship. We are beginning to see more complex cases that, while individually appropriate, may undermine the overall perception of the political impartiality of the public service. Thousands of new recruits are entering the public service for the first time, and the use of social media technology blurs the line between public and private lives. We believe that increased efforts are required to foster a better understanding of non-partisanship as a core public service value.
Now I will turn to the findings of our recent audits. This year, based on our assessment of risk, we examined five organizations. We undertake our audits as part of our responsibility in our delegated staffing system to identify actions that are required to improve the management of staffing.
Based on our findings as well as the responsiveness of each organization to our recommendations, we have taken the measures that follow.
The Office of the Correctional Investigator has put corrective measures in place, and we have removed all restrictions on their appointment authorities.
The Canada Border Services Agency has already taken a number of initiatives, and they are moving forward. We have asked for detailed plans and will conduct a follow-up audit in two years.
At both Health Canada and Infrastructure Canada, senior management moved quickly to undertake corrective actions in response to our audits and have committed to strengthening their human resources management. They are also required to provide additional reporting to make sure that progress is maintained.
At the Immigration and Refugee Board, we found preferential treatment in staffing processes for some executive appointments and former Governor in Council--GIC--appointees. GICs are appointed by ministers, while public servants are appointed by the PSC, which is independent from ministerial direction. Senior management at IRB disagreed with some of our findings. We will continue to do work at the IRB over the course of the next year.
The PSC will investigate any internal appointment process resulting from the audit, and upon receipt of the investigation report, the IRB has agreed to implement corrective measures. As we deem necessary, the PSC will continue to audit appointments made by the IRB, and the IRB will report to the commission on the implementation of the recommendations in the audit report within six months.
l would now like to update the committee on our progress with respect to our audit concerning the unauthorized possession and use of the PSC's second-language evaluation test. We are implementing the recommendations of this audit, and we have reviewed overall test security and taken appropriate measures.
The 115 students who took the tests following their Nec Plus Ultra training have been given two years in which to be re-tested by the PSC. This re-testing is now under way. The PSC also agreed to review the cases of those students who wanted to bring forward any exceptional circumstances. To date, the PSC has resolved 26 cases.
Issues have been raised by NPU and Ms. Madeleine Rundle's new legal counsel about the manner in which the PSC has treated NPU, about the content of the audit report, and about how the PSC is dealing with public servants who attended NPU for language training. The issues raised reflect an inaccurate interpretation of the facts. l have asked the Department of Justice to commence legal proceedings to recover the costs resulting from this situation.
We are also moving forward with our preparation for the five-year review of the PSEA. We are taking stock of the implementation of the act in terms of whether it has been implemented as intended and whether it equips the PSC and others to protect merit and non-partisanship in the years ahead.
It is time to consider succession planning for the current commission. I would like to see two new commissioners appointed to start staggering appointments and transition to the new commission.
[Translation]
Finally, Parliament has given the Public Service Commission, as an independent agency, a specific mandate to protect the values of merit and impartiality as pillars of a professional and impartial public service. We are committed to fulfilling that important mandate on behalf of Parliament and all Canadians.
Thank you. I would now be glad to take your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to welcome the witnesses.
[English]
I'm sorry I was not able to join you at the dinner last night, but I had another commitment. I understand that it was very enjoyable and I look forward to the next opportunity.
I appreciate your opening statement, Madam Barrados, but there's a somewhat different issue I'd like to focus on today, and that's the whole question of what seems to be a very significant creep of partisanship into the public service. I will just quote from a couple of sections that you included in your report itself, the large report that was tabled in the House.
You said: “Non-partisanship is a core value by which public servants are appointed without political influence...”; the commission's mandate is “to protect...non-partisanship in the federal public service...”; and “...non-partisanship is a core value of the public service and that appointments must be free from political influence”.
You also said in the report: “A permanent, professional and non-partisan public service is vital to Canada's system of democracy” and that “Canadians need to be confident that public servants administer, and are perceived as administering, programs and services in a professional and non-partisan manner”.
The Canadian Press learned and, importantly, disclosed that a key program to recruit, as they called it, “the cream of new graduates” suddenly wants to know the applicants' views on the government's economic action plan. Did you know about this new requirement to write an essay commenting on the government's action plan in the applications for these new applicants?
:
With respect, what on earth is “a good answer”?
I'm moving into a second question here that relates to this. It is increasingly concerning that there's a subjectivity going on in the civil service that relates to an increased partisanship.
There are very concerning reports that senior public servants have raised and continue to raise concerns about the politicization of the bureaucracy. Quoted from another report is this: “trampling the...area between partisanship and policy”. More than one said they've “never seen anything so blatant as the current use of the office”, and in this case it was for self-promotion of the government. Another quote is from the reporter investigating it: “None would speak on the record...for fear of reprisals...”.
Madam Barrados, that's one of the most concerning aspects of this: that there would be fear of reprisal so that members of your public service are unwilling to address this and speak publicly. This is also your responsibility.
Certainly, we've heard from all sorts of people who have expressed increasing concern over the last while. These are people for whom you are responsible, in the service for which you are responsible. As in your report, this is fundamental to the democratic process of this government. What are you doing about this? Can you tell--
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Ms. Barrados. Welcome to the Committee. It is always a pleasure to see you here.
I want to congratulate you. You have done a lot of work. The documents can be heavy to carry. They are heavy in terms of weight, but also in terms of content.
I am going to pick up where my colleague left off. My understanding is that in the various departments where you went to check for compliance with the Public Service Employment Act, you realized that appointments were not being made on the basis of merit. At the Immigration and Refugee Board in particular, there is preferential treatment. Unadvertised appointment processes are common in almost every department and especially in the department responsible for infrastructures.
The merit principle was also not respected. At Health Canada, there are many cases of non-compliance with the Public Service Employment Act. There are irregularities in appointments and related decisions. There is also evidence that human resources plans are lacking in some places, are not very apporpriate, are not updated in other departments and finally that there is a lack of consistency in human resources plans in the Public Service. That is not a stellar performance, I have to tell you.
Fortunately, however, you are there and are capable of shedding light on what is happening. Your documents show that you have identified new challenges for protecting the value of impartiality. I would like to know what those challenges are. At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself, I would like to know what you are going to do to solve the problems.
:
Thank you for your comments about our work.
It's true. We have seen new challenges.
I plan to ask my colleague, Mr. Lemaire, to add his comments, because he is responsible for policy.
First, there is the question of interpretation of Part 7 of the Act, which deals with a non-partisan public service. Is it broad enough to address all of the concerns we might see? There are cases where it was impossible to tell if there would be a negative impact on the Public Service, but the definition in the Act leads to restrictions. That is the first challenge: interpretation of the current Act, especially if we are in the process of evaluating the Act. It provides an opportunity to make changes, if necessary.
Second, there is the new order with the advent of Facebook and technologies. People do not understand that information which used to be private is now public. That is another reality.
The third aspect stems from the Supreme Court decision stating that public servants can engage in political activities but the Public Service as a whole has to be respected. It's a qestion of balance. Where is that balance?
We have these challenges. We are currently setting up coordinating groups throughout the country with experts to obtain their input. We have to give our opinion, not just on staffing issues, but also on relations with ministers and deputy ministers. There are also relations between the people who work for a minister, the staff, and the Public Service. In one of our audits, we looked at Governor-in-Council appointees.
It's a big job, and at this point I do not have many good answers.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary Gourde.
My questions, too, will be about recruitment.
Before I begin, I would like to say to you, Ms. Barrados and the witnesses who are here with us, that I am new to this committee; I am only here for a while. Nevertheless, I extend my greetings and welcome you.
I normally sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The last study dealt specifically with recruitment and the significant needs of the federal public service, particularly in terms of bilingual employees. In fact, that analogy that was used was that we needed as many employees as it takes to run a GM plant for a year. Mr. Gravelle took part in many of the proceedings on that issue. I think the need is several thousand employees each year. We know that young people are entering the Public Service, where there are bilingual jobs, but universities have not always prepared them well.
I would like to know if you have been proactive in this regard with post-secondary institutions considering the fact that you are Canada's biggest employer.
:
We actually gave examples of a couple of cases.
In one case, an individual was an executive assistant to the Clerk of the Privy Council, working in the Privy Council Office and supporting the clerk, who is the deputy to the . This individual decided to take a job in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Is this appropriate? Is it non-partisan behaviour or not?
We investigated that case and concluded that it was not a problem of improper partisan behaviour; the individual was looking for another job. But it raised all kinds of other problems in terms of conflict of interest and how many people you can have in the public service who go and work for political offices?
I cited the case of the individual going to work for the Leader of the Opposition, but I could also cite you cases of public servants working for ministers--so working in a political function--and coming back into the public service.
My question is, how much of this can we have and what kinds of fences should be put around it?
:
Let's try to stick to your document, because otherwise we may go off in all different directions.
Among those whose first official language is French, 84% were bilingual at the time of their recruitment. If I go by your document, there is an extremely significant difference between Anglophones and Francophones as far as bilingualism is concerned. People might think that because of that, in the long run, Francophones appear to be favoured, that it is easier for them to move up in a bilingual system. However, on page 9 of your document, you state that the permanent start-up ratio for people whose first official language English was 31.3%, compared with 25% among Francophones. That does not look like a system that does much for Francophones in terms of career advancement.
The following page states:
Among bilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 3.6%. Among unilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 2.3%. The combined effect of first official language and bilingualism on career progression remained statistically significant for 49 out of the 62 groups and levels studied.
It seems that being bilingual or not makes no difference: in both cases, Francophones advance more slowly in their career than Anglophones.
Should we not conclude from all this that Canada's system of bilingualism, which in theory affirms the equality of the two languages, is in practice a denial of that equialty? We say there are two official languages: English and simultaneous translation. In principle, the two languages are equal.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Barrados, for coming here this afternoon. We appreciate not only your attendance here but also our time last night. It was informative, and those of us who attended got good value for the time we spent together.
Today I'm going to follow up on the direction Ms. Martha Hall Findlay was moving in some time ago in terms of the non-partisanship of our civil servants. Last night we talked a little about the necessity of ensuring that at least the upper echelon within the civil service has a guard around how much partisan activity they undertake while still serving in that capacity.
Today I read something interesting. I was reading through Quorum and came across a story by Greg Weston, who cited a diplomat who has a Facebook page that mentioned certain political thoughts he has. He has unfortunately probably compromised his negotiating capacity through that Facebook page, as it relates to his responsibility within the foreign service.
I'm sure the advent of the Facebook page has really complicated your life, because it's one opportunity in which, although we think we're engaging in private conversations, we're in fact broadcasting a lot of personal information that may compromise our non-partisanship if we are trying to be non-partisan. Could you talk a little bit about the Facebook reality and how that challenge is changing the way you do your job?
I'd also ask that you talk about any situation in which you've had to speak to departments about making it clear as to the necessity of watching what people put on their Facebook pages as they enter certain levels within the public service.
There are two directions of conversation here. I understand, Madam Barrados, the concerns you have raised about partisanship in the public service that relate to public servants who want to participate or who do participate in political activity.
My concern is about those public servants who actually do not want to participate in partisan activity, but who, because of the pressures now being exerted upon them, somehow either feel obliged to participate in it or feel they are being subjected to it.
I was quite struck by your comment about the need for public servants to be seen as impartial by the people they work for because they need to be seen as being able to serve any political party. I understand why you said that, but it struck me, because my impression is that the public service is there to actually serve the Canadian public. I will go back to the earlier comment, quoted from your own report, that “Canadians need to be confident that public servants administer, and are perceived as administering, programs and services in a professional and non-partisan manner”.
I really want to focus back--and again, not on those who want to participate in political activity and need to know where those lines are--on those who don't want to but are feeling pressured to participate in partisan activities and programs. We in this committee have had a very hard time getting information, particularly information on government spending. My concern is that public servants have a number of responsibilities to fulfill in their jobs in compliance with government policies and rules, not political ones. In some cases, such as that of accounting officers, the Accountability Act specifically provides that they're accountable to the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Commons.
Recently we were refused the participation of certain public servants without the presence of the minister in question. We actually asked the public servants to stay longer, but we were denied that opportunity. They granted us an extra 20 minutes or half an hour, but that was only if the minister also stayed.
We had a very hard time getting information and we continue to have a very hard time getting information. We had representatives from the PCO here just recently, as well as those from Treasury Board, and the overwhelming impression we have is that there's a significant level of discomfort.
To the extent that you have public servants who have an obligation to the Canadian public and to us in terms of our roles as parliamentarians and being on this committee, is that ultimately not putting them in a very difficult position? Does that not go back, ultimately, to your responsibility for them and for their jobs?
When you said earlier that you would look at corrective actions to deal with specific situations, what kind of corrective action can you actually engage in for a situation that appears to be increasingly politicized, with people who are either serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or appointed based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister? What kind of corrective action would you recommend given the concerns I've now raised?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to talk a little bit about partisan activity. I know we've talked a lot about it today, but I think it's important that we define exactly what would constitute partisan activity, because I'm getting the sense that Ms. Hall Findlay is concerned about the implementation of certain government programs.
When my party was in opposition, I disagreed with many programs that were brought forward, but I recognized that the civil servants had a duty to perform what was being asked of them by the government of the day in terms of implementing certain policies.
What defines a partisan activity? What things are limited? What is the difference between somebody who's being asked to, say, attend a fundraiser or put up campaign signs, and somebody who's asked to implement a program that the government of the day has legislated or regulated?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Barrados, I am going to come back to a question I asked you earlier during a conversation. You mentioned the subject in your opening statement today. You said you hoped very much to reduce staffing times. As I stated earlier, you have worked very hard on that front. However, you said that you have realized the expected gains in performance in terms of how fast processes are completed.
First, I would like to know who you went digging for the reasons why staffing takes so long. Is it because jobs were being slashed in order to save money? Is it because employees are overworked? I would like to know why.
Second, when employees are not replaced, there is a very negative impact on the remaining employees in the unit. This creates the potential for mistakes, an excessive workload and stress. As you say, it can encourage managers to start hiring temporary casual staff. It also has the indirect effect of putting some people ahead of others.
Do you have the authority to conduct a study of working conditions that are deteriorating specifically because of the staffing time, which seems to be getting longer? Part of your mission — which I read carefully — is to protect the integrity of the system. Do you also have to check whether the intergrity human beings as employees is also being preserved?
Finally, my last question is this. You say that you are engaged in succession planning for the Commission. You would like two new commissioners to be appointed so that you can begin staggering appointments and start making the transition to the new commission. I am perfectly willing to help you. Do you need a motion from the Committee that would help you find the extra staff you need to continue this fine work?
:
Thank you. I appreciate having the final question here. I think this will be the last one we get an opportunity to ask.
I'm going to shift things a little bit, just because I think we've probably exhausted many of the issues that you've reported on and the other things of interest.
You talked about the Prime Minister's commission on efficiencies; I believe David Emerson is a co-chair on that. They outlined a number of things related to the back office, to the systems and the rest of this. I know that this comes outside of your main responsibilities, but I know that you have a lot of information as it relates to your responsibilities and the relationship between systems within the government.
Because our committee is very interested in this, can you give recommendations as to how we might be able to make government more efficient while still maintaining the services that Canadians have come to expect from their federal government? By having a discussion about those systems and the improvement of those systems, I think that as a committee we might be able to recommend something that would be helpful to the government.
Could you give us your perspective as to who would be good for us to speak with in relation to creating efficiencies? I'm not asking you to judge the right way to do it or the wrong way to do it. I'm just asking about people who are doing it, people who are trying to create efficiencies. It could be other countries or other jurisdictions here in this country. Do you have any suggestions that the committee might be able to consider moving forward as we look at this issue?
:
I don't want to be so presumptuous as to tell the committee what they might find useful, but I'll tell you what I find useful, and the committee can take that any way they like.
The Prime Minister's advisory group is actually doing interesting work. It's a cast from across the country. There are interesting issues that are raised. Not all of their recommendations are really implemented, so it's an area that is of interest.
I have found the experience in the Netherlands particularly interesting, because there has been a move there that is being run by public servants, at the direction of the government, to reduce government, to make the investments in the right place, and to improve the back office. There is a colleague there to whom I have been speaking, Roel Bekker, who gave one of the addresses at the IPAC conference this summer in New Brunswick.
The Australians are also very interesting, because Australia at this point is going through a major review of its public service. I don't know what the outcome of that is going to be, but they have a new government and they're undertaking a broad-based review. There's a lot of interest here in Canada because Australia has many parallels to Canada in size and governance.
There are a number of interesting things being done in some of the provinces, too. I hesitate to do this, because of course if I don't mention all provinces, that presents difficulties. There are interesting things being done in Quebec. We deal with colleagues in Ontario as well as British Columbia. In different sectors, there's quite a network. We meet regularly and we exchange practice. I'd be happy to share with the committee any of that kind of material if somebody wants to review it and see if there's anything you might find interesting.
:
Yes, I would be delighted.
Ms. Barrados, on page 34 of your annual report is a tabled titled "Number of employees exempted under the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order". My understanding is that a large number of positions are opened each year but require the incumbent to be bilingual. However, even in respect of those positions for which bilingualism is required, an order is applied so that some of the people recruited can be exempted from the requirement to know the other language. I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of these people who do not know the other language are Anglophones. We saw a short while ago that approximately 85% of Francophone recruits are bilingual, compared with only 22% of Anglophones.
In the four years you discuss in that report, that is, 2005 to 2009, the number of exemptions granted was a bit higher each year. It went from 14.1% to 15.4% the next year, then 15.6% and finally 18.7%. There is absolutely nothing spectacular about the growth from one year to the next. However, the rise from 14.1% to 18.7% is quite significant. You state in your report that exempted employees have two years to learn the other language, usually French. You also state that as a result of this increase, you have taken measures to ensure compliance with the order. From what I can see, it means that at the end of those two years, the people have to show that they have learned French. There may be some Francophones in the opposite situation, but there cannot be many of them.
Is there not a big difference between someone who speaks his or her second language at the time of hiring and someone who is going to learn because he or she is being forced to do so, who has two years to do it and who will probably succeed by taking a test? A person who is bilingual when he or she is hired may have life experience that made it possible to learn and appreciate the other language. On the other hand, a person who does not know the other language, French in this instance, when he or she is hired may be content doing what it takes to pass the test and may never utter another word of French.
With that in mind, does increasing the number of exemptions entail a significant risk?
[English]
Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
We have a proud tradition in Canada of a public service that is independent, has integrity, and is generally non-partisan. Our concern has been this political creep that's coming in while we have been teaching the world what the divisions are between public servants and parliamentarians. A lot of countries don't have it and that leads to a lot of unpleasant stuff happening.
We appreciate the work you are doing. We would like you to be more vigilant so that reports in the media about people being asked to do analytical work that is really more partisan than analytical do not come through.
With that, I would like to give you an opportunity to make your closing remarks. Then we will suspend the meeting for a few seconds.
Thank you.
Please go ahead, Madam Barrados.
:
Chair, I'll just bring forward a friendly amendment.
Just for the information of members, it doesn't all originate from electronic copies. Some of these are photocopies. That's specifically what brings me to my friendly amendment, which I hope will be a friendly amendment. Following the wording “November 9, 2009, a copy of all documents”, the amendment would add “while respecting all applicable provisions outlined in the Privacy Act...”.
Simply put, we recommend to the minister that yes, everything come to this committee, with the exception of that information on those documents that should be whited out, such as the small-town mayors' phone numbers. In some cases, they actually have put in their own home phone numbers. They were told that this information would be kept in confidence.
There's also the other provision as it relates to confidential commercial information that may have been included in those documents. These are applications that include a lot of private information, including signatures, names, and addresses--those types of things that really are of no interest to us as a committee. It's outlined within the Privacy Act that this information should not be distributed.
So I just make that amendment there because actually the budget officer receives all of the information with it intact, but I think that once it comes to our committee we can't be assured of the same type of confidentiality just because it's distributed to all our offices and our office staff see all of that.