Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday June 17, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met today at 9:30 a.m. to study Bill C-25, 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.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: On our agenda today, colleagues, is Bill C-25.
[English]
It is 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.
[Translation]
Our main witness this morning is the honourable Lucienne Robillard, the President of Treasury Board.
[English]
There is no need for an introduction.
[Translation]
She has had a long career in public life in Quebec and Canada, is a former MNA and minister in Quebec and has been President of Treasury Board since 1999.
[English]
It is no secret around here that she has been, to some extent, the inspiration — certainly the driving force — in seeing this bill to its present stage I would not say "conclusion" as we have not reached that yet.
We are pleased to have her. We look forward to her testimony. She is accompanied by James Lahey, who is well known to honourable senators, as the Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board; and Ranald Quail, who is Deputy Minister on the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service. Mr. Quail has been, I think, the principal public servant in the exercise that led to this bill.
[Translation]
Monique Boudrias, assistant deputy minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service.
[English]
Welcome to all of you.
The minister has an opening statement, copies of which are available to members of the committee in both official languages.
Please proceed, Ms. Robillard, and welcome.
[Translation]
Ms. Lucienne Robillard, P.C., President of the Treasury Board of Canada: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to appear before this committee today to discuss the Public Service Modernization Act. As Canadians and parliamentarians, we all share an interest in seeing that the Public Service maintains its long and proud tradition of excellence. There are few issues we deal with in government that so clearly impact on every aspect of life in our country. Public servants usually work behind the scene and with little fanfare, but they succeed in touching our lives in countless ways for which we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.
Bill C-25 is designed to ensure that talented people continue to be attracted to the ranks of the public service and that it continues to serve Canadians effectively in an ever changing and increasingly complex world. It proposes the first meaningful change to the legislative framework that governs public service human resources management in over a generation.
[English]
The legislation before you is the product of two years' of wide consultation and analysis. Throughout the summer of 2001, I met with public servants at all levels in cities across Canada. We sought and received the views of managers, employees and union representatives. Bargaining agents made submissions to the task force and the national joint council served as a useful forum for sharing ideas. Bargaining agents provided input that helped to shape the government's recommendations. We also benefited from private sector and academic perspectives through an external advisory group and the report of the advisory committee on labour relations.
Bill C-25 has been thoroughly reviewed by the House. The Standing Committee on Government Relations and Estimates spent three months hearing from more than 20 witnesses and systematically reviewed 175 proposed amendments. I am confident that we have a very comprehensive and balanced piece of legislation.
The public service modernization act focuses on three main areas. First, the act streamlines our staffing system to improve our ability to attract and hire people when and where we need them. Second, it fosters more constructive labour-management relations to create a more productive and supportive working environment. Third, it changes the public service's approach to corporate learning and development to help us retain employees and serve Canadians better.
[Translation]
Each of these elements alone would be an important step forward. Together, they represent a firm legislative foundation upon which to continue to modernize the way we do business in the government.
I realize that the members of the committee are familiar with the general provisions of the bill. However, it might be useful for me to identify some of the key concerns that have been raised and try to dispel any misconceptions that might exist. Let me start with staffing and recourse. I have heard bargaining agents and others expressing the concern that we are somehow "watering down" merit. This is simply not so.
The reason we are here today, is that the current staffing system is broken. Over the last 30 years, numerous studies have told us that the reason for this is that it is too prescriptive and rigid. Prescriptiveness is embedded in the current legislation and has been compounded through decades of court decisions defining merit and establishing jurisprudence. For example, recent court decisions have told us how we must mark tests — how we must mark each answer in a test with a separate pass mark for each. The courts have ruled that candidates must be assessed in respect of all the duties of the position, regardless of what the manager has advertised and has determined to be the most relevant. These are just examples. Imagine numerous decisions of that nature that make the process of recruiting and staffing so burdensome.
[English]
Legislative change is required to improve the public service staffing system — in response to the Auditor General's comment that, "...the complex rules-driven staffing system has been an obstacle to recruiting qualified applicants in the public service for 40 years."
Administrative measures cannot do it. Without legislative change, we cannot respond to the recruitment and promotion requirements that the public service faces today — challenges that will grow in the next years.
In 1996, a review of staffing conducted on behalf of the Public Service Commission, PSC, concluded that neither managers nor employees were satisfied with the current staffing approach. Managers found it frustrating, time- consuming and too focused on whether or not a decision could be successfully appealed rather than on whether they were getting the best person for the job. Employees did not trust the system to deliver a fair result.
How does Bill C-25 address this problem? Bill C-25 avoids the prescriptive procedural elements that exist in today's legislation. Instead, it provides, for the first time in legislation, a clear statement of how merit is to be achieved. Today, staffing must be non-partisan. Today, appointees must meet the essential qualifications of the work, which include the experience, skills, education and personal suitability necessary to perform the work. Essential qualifications are not minimum qualifications. This is the same as the basis for assessment that is used today. Bill C-25 also requires that appointees must meet any additional qualifications that are an asset to the work or the organization, any operational requirements, and any current and future needs of the organization and of the public service. There cannot be any personal favouritism, as this would constitute an abuse of authority.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 also provides that there will clear direction to deputy heads as to how staffing will be carried out by giving to the PSC, an independent agency reporting to Parliament, the clear authority to: establish policy regarding making and revoking appointments in consultation with the unions; determine the tools for assessment; establish conditions of delegation; and monitor, investigate and audit.
Bill C-25 helps to preserve competitive staffing. The current practice of the PSC in determining the circumstances when it is appropriate to hold a competition and consider many candidates and when it is appropriate to consider one candidate only will continue under C-25.
Unlike today's legislation, the underlying philosophy of Bill C-25 is to place the focus on values instead of rules. To understand the full staffing regime, you must go beyond the definition of merit. You must look at the entire act. For example, the preamble clearly establishes the values upon which staffing is to be based. These values include: merit and non-partisanship; excellence; fair, transparent employment practices; representativeness; flexibility and accountability; linguistic duality and results for Canadians.
The flexible and general framework in C-25 is balanced with strong safeguards:
- an independent Public Service Commission with a mandate to make all appointments;
- to delegate that authority with terms and conditions; to monitor the use of delegated authority; and
- to amend or rescind delegation;
- the authority of the PSC to set policy, regulations and guidelines on how staffing is conducted;
- the authority of the PSC to investigate external appointment processes to ensure they are based on merit, and to investigate external and internal appointment processes in cases of fraud and political influence;
- the power to revoke appointments and take any corrective action it considers appropriate;
- the new Public Service Staffing Tribunal — an independent agency which is completely separate from the appointing authority — to manage a recourse regime that safeguards against abuse of authority.
Honourable senators, these measures afford strong protection for merit and leave no room for political or bureaucratic patronage. Additional protections are provided through a revamped recourse system.
[English]
The 1997 Public Service Commission report "Recourse, Causes and Impacts" stated that "recourse action appears to be motivated less by staffing errors and more by some perceived injustice such as bias and discrimination, abuse of authority or unjust treatment." Employees are concerned with the treatment they receive right now.
The current staffing recourse system was not designed to address how employees are treated. Appeal boards are convened to determine whether the rules and processes were followed in making an appointment. This satisfied the requirements of the current act and existing case law but does little to address the concerns of the employee.
Bill C-25 provides for informal discussions of decisions taken in the course of an appointment process, at any stage of the process. Employees would have the opportunity to raise issues related to their results at the time decisions are made. Departments would be able to review their decisions and resolve many issues informally.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 focuses formal recourse on how the complainant was treated. The grounds for complaint are clearly articulated in the new act and include abuse of authority. These grounds address complainant concerns and provide a safeguard against abuses such as bad faith and personal favouritism.
In conclusion, we can stay with the status quo, keeping a staffing system which is almost universally recognized as inefficient and where process is the entire focus, or take this opportunity to develop a truly modern and accountable staffing system for today's and future generations of the public service.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, members of both chambers have expressed an interest in expanding job competitions to a national area of selection. I agree. In fact, we are working towards it.
National areas of selection are now used for open competitions for senior officer-level jobs, including executives, EXs, and positions within two levels below executives. They are also used for post-secondary recruitment and student recruitment programs.
However, national areas of selection for all positions cannot be achieved overnight. We need the tools and the infrastructure to deal with the high volume of responses expected. Pilot projects by the Public Service Commission have indicated that when a competition is opened nationally, the volume of applications increased significantly. That is normal. One pilot saw a 128 per cent increase in number of applications received and a 91 per cent increase in number of referrals to departments.
[Translation]
Following close consultations with parliamentarians, the Public Service Commission recently tabled its report. In its report, the PSC signalled that it has now reached a stage where it will be impossible to make significant progress toward e-recruitment and expand the use of national areas of selection without funding support. It is necessary therefore to find a balance between giving Canadians access to public service jobs and having affordable and efficient systems to better serve them.
Honourable senators, I am open to investing in innovative technological solutions with a view to gradually increasing the national areas of selection starting with junior- and middle- officer-level jobs.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, we have heard several people speak also passionately about the oath of allegiance. As you may know, under the current legislation, upon entering the public service, employees must take an oath or solemn affirmation of office and secrecy and the oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to the Queen.
Bill C-25 does not seek to change our system of government. It does not seek to change the oath of allegiance to the Queen, as some have suggested. This bill merely says that, from an employer's point of view, promising to uphold the office and secrecy of the public service is a sufficient condition for employment. Bill C-25 is a legislative recognition of the duty of loyalty and faithful and honest service that is owed by public servants to their employer, the Government of Canada. The loyalty is to the government, not to the political party in power at any one time.
It is true that this action is consistent with practices in other Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. However, that is not why we are proposing this change. We believe that, by requiring new employees to take only the one oath, it will be clearer to them what public service values are, including the need to discharge your duties faithfully and honestly.
[Translation]
Honourables senators, before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the amendments introduced in the House of Commons to strengthen the bill.
Several of the proposed safeguards for merit were strengthened as a result of the House's review, including one provision explicitly clarifying that abuse of authority includes personal favouritism and bad faith. Another amendment made by the House of Commons expanded the scope of audit for the Public Service Commission to include the Deputy Head's exercise of his or her authorities related to merit.
This means that the PSC will be able to audit the essential qualifications, asset qualifications, operational requirements, and the current and future needs of the organization that Deputy Heads establish for staffing purposes.
Honourable senators, most of the current provisions of the Public Service Employment Act on political activities of public service employees were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991, under the Charter. A number of witnesses before the House committee, including the PSC, wanted to ensure that employees will be able to engage in political activities and in a manner that is consistent with the nature of their duties and other circumstances. As a result of amendments, there is a greater measure of flexibility with respect to whether an employee will be required to take leave when seeking to be a candidate or being a candidate in an election.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, the government is also serious about protecting employees who disclose wrongdoing in the workplace. That is why we instituted a policy on internal disclosure in November 2001 — to support employees who raise issues of wrongdoing in the workplace and protect them from reprisal. Similarly, we have already taken steps to protect our employees from harassment through a revised policy statement that was introduced in June 2001.
We welcome amendments to the Public Service Modernization Act, PSMA, which reflect the importance of having such Treasury Board policies in place. We also welcomed amendments that recognize that wrongdoing in the workplace and harassment may be discussed by deputy heads and bargaining agents in the new consultation committees.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the changes proposed in this legislation are long overdue. Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to speak with many public servants and I can say with assurance, that there is enthusiasm for this bill. It won't cause overnight and revolutionary change — but it will certainly move us in the right direction.
Bill C-25 is a balanced package of proposals. Of course, as we implement the bill we may come to realize that certain adjustments are called for. That is why we have built in an automatic review process. We had initially proposed a seven-year review, but the House felt that five years was a more appropriate amount of time. It will guarantee that we will not be waiting another 35 years to take action if it is needed.
Honourable senators, I am optimistic. We have an exceptional public service in this country and I think we can make it even better. Bill C-25 is going to help.
I would welcome any questions that the members of the committee may have.
Senator Bolduc: This is a big and complicated bill. It looks like some kind of procedural code.
Why did you feel the need to enact legislation on labour relations apart from the Canada Labour Code? Technically, would it not be better to state the Canada Labour Code applies everywhere, apart from exceptional cases?
Ms. Robillard: This was debated at length. More than two years ago, we appointed an independent committee, the Fryer Committee, which brought together various labour relations experts, who played with the idea of applying the Canada Labour Code. After lengthy deliberations and analyses of the various differences between the public service and the private sector, a recommendation was made to us, which we accepted, whereby we would continue to keep a labour relations system different from the one applied in the private sector. Nonetheless, as you saw in our bill, we included some elements of the Canada Labour Code.
Senator Bolduc: How is the public service classification plan progressing? Apparently, an attempt was made to implement one for the past few years, but it was not successful and the work needs to be done over again. I am very worried because of course, the very structure of the public service is at stake.
Without stating this from the outset, it is difficult to set up bargaining units adapted to the various elements of the public service. This complicates the staffing process, especially when it comes to writing out the qualifications required for jobs or classes of jobs, when there is no clear plan. This is awkward for defining job requirements; but job requirements and standards of competence are at the very foundation of recruiting, promotion and personnel management in general. I must say that this is quite worrisome.
Ms. Robillard: Senator Bolduc, you are truly raising one of our most basic problems. When I held consultations in 2001, for the bill on modernization, public servants as well as middle-level managers in the regions said clearly that a modernization act, without any regard for classification, would not yield the desired results. Classification must absolutely be reformed. I agreed with them. Unfortunately, efforts were made over the years to reform the entire classification system in the public service. Currently, many job descriptions are out of date. We had to base all this on the notion of a single universal standard.
I remember that when I was appointed Chair of the Treasury Board, the secretary, at the time, told me that they were succeeding in doing this, but it was not the case. After some feasibility studies which showed exactly how this system would work, we soon realized that it was unrealistic to apply one universal classification standard to the public service, given the current diversity of jobs in the public service. The jobs that existed in the public service 10 years ago are completely different from the ones we have today with regard to job categories and the kind of people we are looking for.
Then we received the Auditor General's report. But last year I had already announced that we were dropping the universal approach and that instead we would apply a three-year action plan to job category classification standards, and that we would note our progress on a yearly basis. Besides, two weeks ago, I tabled the first report on our progress with classification standards. My assistant secretary has the enjoyable task of being in charge of this file in the Secretariat. I now invite him to give a more complete answer.
Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary, the Treasury Board Secretariat: In 1998, an order in council established 25 groups in a structure which is the foundation of the structure of the public service. These groups are the ones which are recognized for collective bargaining. The structure now exists and it is clearly understood by the unions, by the employees and by ourselves.
Senator Bolduc: Do any of the finished parts of these structures mention the job requirements for job categories? Since 1923, our system, which was adopted here during the 1940s, has been under an American influence. I remember this as if it had happened yesterday, especially just after the war.
In 1963, when we had the same problem in Quebec, we had to overhaul the system. Instead of basing it on very specific job categories as we had previously done, we came up with a system that defined professionals by groups: engineers, accountants, lawyers, and so forth.
For each group, a career plan was established based on entry and promotion period. This simplified our staffing operations. We got rid of three quarters of our problems, and the same system is still functioning today. Of course, I imagine that for technicians, office staff and managers, a similar system can be made.
This worries me because if things are not clear, we cannot possibly do general recruiting with an organized competition system in order to hire the best university graduates to work for the government.
I was a bit sad when I read your bill and saw that the notion of competition is almost completely absent. I understand the system of delegation to deputy heads, I have nothing against it. I do not think that that is where the problem lies. The problem is that, rather than simply mentioning merit in the introduction, it would have been better to mention instruments for young graduates. It is essential for the quality of our future senior officials that we recruit the best candidates from universities and get a fair share of the market from the university graduates. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been doing this for years. They have built a very good system. Their system is so good that when governments have a shortage of recruits in other departments, they often recruit assistant deputy ministers or directors general from the Department of Foreign Affairs to work as deputy ministers in other departments. I have witnessed this for 25 years in Ottawa. I was in touch with those people on a daily basis.
We must not forget that this is the foundation of the future quality of management. I am not saying that the current management is bad. What I just said about senior officials in the public service, who emerged from the Department of Foreign Affairs and from the Department of Finance to work in other departments, is a good example. But let us not lose sight of equal opportunities for young graduates. This is essential.
Finally, this turns into a procedural code instead of setting a few basic principles whereby public servants are hired through competition to determine the value of each candidate before hiring them. It seems simple to me. I do not mean that this should be done for 200,000 federal public servants. But it should be the rule for graduates and departments must deal with them through a competition system. Otherwise, a manager could adapt job requirements to hire someone he wants. In other words, the candidate has been pre-selected and the job requirements are tailored to fit that person. I fear that there may be patronage, not among ministers who do not have time for that, but it can occur among officials. I am not the only one to believe this. Mr. Chairman, it is important for Ms. Robillard to be aware of this. It is at the foundation of the system. I do not see how the commission will be able to deal under with this under the current system. You will have problems.
Finally, many cases will end up before a staffing tribunal and the problems will be solved through arbitration, which is not a healthy system. If the unions were here, I would tell them that. We need to find procedures that ensure a proper evaluation of candidates, that is all. Otherwise, we will never see the end of it. Whether this is done by the commission or by the department does not matter to me provided that the process is implemented and included in the bill. So far, it is not in the bill. This is the problem with this bill.
Ms. Robillard: You have touched upon a current problem of ours. With your permission, let me ask Ms. Boudrias to fill us on the classification concept and tell you how selection can be done based on our current classification structures. Afterward, I will deal with the other points you raised.
Ms. Monique Boudrias, Assistant Deputy Minister, the Secretariat of the Treasury Board: I am happy to tell you that we currently have selection standards for each occupational group in the public service, including our blue collars, our professionals, our scientists and our upper management — this includes every category — and these will be permanent selection standards. From now on they will be referred to as qualification standards pursuant to section 31 of the act. The difference is that currently, the Public Service Commission is in charge of these standards and pursuant to the bill, it will be the Treasury Board, as the employer, who will be accountable for qualification standards. Thus, when the classification standards are revised by the employer, the employer will have some leeway for revising qualification standards. The procedure will be established and deputy heads will enforce the standards on the employer's behalf.
Now with regard to competitions, in Bill C-25, the competition concept was retained in terms of public notice. Public notice will be issued to the employees. Most of the work will be done through competition and with public notice and in the public notice, the conditions for eligibility to the job will be described, as well as the qualification requirements and the job conditions for the job. It will be entirely based on the values defined in our preamble on the transparency plan. For all the elements that a manager uses within the process, whether in seeking candidates from universities or within the public service, we will go on having competitions in the future.
There will be, as we have today, according to the manager's choice, the possibility of making appointments without competition and with a right to complain. Recruitment will go on on university campuses across Canada. This exercise is already going on with a national competition zone and graduates from all universities in Canada will be informed in advance of the criteria for making an application. The system is a bit different. In the system, people will have to qualify for the job according to previously stated requirements. Those who are not satisfied will be able to have informal recourse for internal competitions, because we want to improve the quality of dialogue between employees and management, and give a chance to people in the department to talk to each other and solve the problems in the working environment. This dialogue process is enhanced with a dispute resolution system each deputy head will have to implement a dispute resolution system in his department, for what we call in English alternative dispute resolution. If employees collaborate with their management, they will have the help of a facilitator or a mediator to resolve the problems. If the problem is not resolved, the employee will, together with the union, be able to appeal the manager's decision on the basis of abuse of power, in cases where he may have been treated in a biased, prejudiced or discriminatory way or if there has been personal favouritism. And that is an overview of the staffing system.
You also mentioned that deputy heads will have much more leeway. This leeway will be exercised through delegation whereby the deputy head will sign an agreement — as it is currently done — with the Public Service Commission, after consulting the unions on the way they should exercise their prerogatives and their flexibility. An annual account of this will be provided to the Public Service Commission of Canada.
The commission will have two or three instruments for measurement, which means that when work is delegated, monitoring or surveillance can be done and there are specific powers for monitoring. The Public Service Commission also has powers to investigate, if there are complaints from the outside. Senator Bolduc, I think that our system has the answers to your problems.
Senator Maheu: In its present form, Bill C-25 contains a provision in clause 34 of Part 3 establishing once again geographic criteria for purposes of eligibility to a position in the federal public service. I have been told that the area of selection is to be within a 50-kilometre radius.
[English]
Under this legislation, it seems that someone may be denied a position within the public service if that person lives outside the 50-kilometre area. If you live outside the National Capital Region, for instance, you may not be able to apply for a particular competition, even if you have all the qualifications. I realize you have responded partially by referring to possible increases in the number of applicants; and, of course, there will be a cost involved.
I read in some of our background information that an employee would be able to file grievances involving issues under the Canadian Human Rights Act, except in relation to pay equity. Therefore, I am not talking about anything touching salary.
Could the same possibility not apply to non-residents who are affected by the 50-kilometre rule? Could you explain why Bill C-25 re-establishes this restriction that has existed for years and which will be one of the points at which this committee will be looking closely?
[Translation]
Ms. Robillard: This particular concern has been raised by members of the House of Commons over the past several months. In the present legislation, areas of selection are allowed and the Public Service Commission is responsible for this entire matter. Many concerns were raised by members of Parliament from the Atlantic region who have repeatedly brought up the way in which this is applied, I'm thinking both of Charles Hubbard and Bill Casey. Let us be clear, the 50-kilometre standard is not specified in the legislation. What has happened since parliamentarians raised this particular issue? Meetings have taken place between members of the Public Service Commission and parliamentarians in order to determine what the particular problems are and what could be done. Last year, four pilot projects were carried out by the Public Service Commission. At the end of November 2002, they tabled a report to Parliament setting out the results of the four pilot projects and making a commitment to Parliamentarians that they would come back in June of this year with an action plan explaining how they intend to phase in a national area of selection.
The Auditor General went so far as to point out that if the national selection area were to apply as of tomorrow for all jobs in the public service, we would be faced with a very disorderly situation. The Public Service Commission is not equipped to deal with such a large number of jobs from one day to the next.
Last week the Commission tabled its action plan. For more information, this action plan is available on the Public Service Commission's website. The plan sets out how a national area of selection will be phased in over time. In order to reach this objective, the Commission is asking the Treasury Board to provide financial support in the region of $40 million.
As I already mentioned, I am willing to invest in the phasing in of a national area of selection.
Should this bill be passed, I will then have at my disposal financial resources for the implementation of the bill. A part of this amount will be set aside for our common aim of setting up a national area of selection. The implementation will require an efficient and affordable system. I am of the view that the Commission has come up with a good action plan in that respect.
Senator Gauthier: First of all I would like to congratulate you for attempting to take up this challenge. I have been following this issue for a number of years now.
As an employer, how are you able to negotiate with parliamentarians a matter such as the merit principle? This is a principle that comes under the public service rather than any political or partisan platform. How is it possible to take on the roles of both employer and the entity responsible for administering the basic underpinning of the public service, namely the merit principle? That is a huge challenge.
Ms. Robillard: The President of the Treasury Board does indeed represent the employer of the public service. At the same time, she is also a minister within the government.
I received a clear mandate on the part of the Prime Minister. As you know, the Prime Minister set up a working group chaired by Ran Quail, formerly with the Privy Council, who carried out a number of consultations over two years. Parliamentarians recently examined at length whether this bill would allow us to achieve specific objectives. Forty out of the 175 proposed amendments to this bill were adopted.
In the course of studying this bill, we consulted not only people from within the public service, but also with people from the outside, experts in public service matters. The House of Commons asked for expert reports and heard from the experts themselves; the transcriptions of the deliberations are also available. All this helped us to draft the bill.
The bill does not affect every single partner working for the Canadian government. By "partners," I am referring to the employees, their union representatives, managers from the Public Service Commission or the Labour Relations Board. The group therefore includes many partners. The bill before you is a measure of progress, in particular, it will help us face the looming demographic challenge and improve labour relations within government. The bill also provides for a review in five years. It has been 35 years since these two bills were reviewed in depth. It would therefore be a good idea if members of Parliament re-examined the situation in five years.
Senator Gauthier: So, you do not think there is a conflict between your role as the employer and your role as the administrator of the merit principle.
Ms. Robillard: The Public Service Commission is really in charge of applying the merit principle. The bill highlights the fact that the public service must protect the merit principle as opposed to its operational responsibilities. In fact, we have removed the operational responsibilities to focus on the fact that the Public Service Commission is responsible for the merit principle and is accountable to Parliament.
Senator Gauthier: Who will be in charge of establishing the national areas of selection?
Ms. Robillard: As it now stands, the Public Service Commission has that responsibility. However, it has planned to gradually eliminate these areas. Last year, 23 per cent of advertized positions were in a national area of selection. The Commission is proposing to make a gradual transition over the next four years. But in order to do so, it has asked for financial support.
Senator Gauthier: I understand what the report is all about, how the system works and the selection criteria. What I am concerned about is whether the Public Service Commission will be in charge of creating these areas of selection.
Ms. Robillard: The Public Service Commission will ensure that they are gradually eliminated.
Senator Gauthier: Allow me to refer to the report Mr. Himelfarb presented the Prime Minister on March 31, 2003. There is a passage which worries me a bit. The report states that the reputation of Canada's public service has been tarnished. It criticized and questioned the basic competence of the public service. There has been public controversy with regard to the way grants have been managed, contributions distributed, sponsorship deals made and the way the national gun control registry was managed.
Will Bill C-25 change the way managers do their work and make them more accountable and responsible?
Ms. Robillard: Bill C-25 is very clear about what the responsibilities of human resources managers are and in what way they are accountable. The roles of the employer, the Public Service Commission and managers have been clarified. Each group will be responsible for its human resources management decisions. Not only will the Public Service Commission have to submit reports to Parliament, but Treasury Board as well. Since Treasury Board will have to table a report on human resources management, it will be easier for members of Parliament to monitor the situation within government more closely.
You quoted a passage from the annual report presented by the Clerk of the Privy Council to the Prime Minister. Indeed, last year we discovered certain examples of problems with the way things are currently managed. According to the clerk, this could have affected the general credibility of the public service.
Several measures have been taken since then. Apart from Bill C-25, there will soon be a guide for deputy ministers, which is similar to the existing guide for ministers and which addresses a minister's responsibilities. The deputy minister's guide will also address the deputy minister's responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. A management and accountability framework will also be published by Treasury Board for all general managers, and a new code of values and ethics will be published for the public service as a whole. In my opinion, these are very concrete actions which have been taken to address the issue you have just raised.
Senator Gauthier: A little earlier, senator Bolduc asked a question about the classification standards. As it now stands, these classification standards cannot be negotiated with the unions. But the unions are an important part of our system.
Is it possible that the classification standards, for which you are now responsible, will one day be the shared, negotiated responsibility of the unions and the government?
Ms. Robillard: We have not opted for that approach yet. However, that is not a reason for management not to discuss the issue with the unions. In fact, the National Joint Council, which represents management and employees, looks into several aspects of labour relations.
Bill C-25 also promotes what we call "co-development," which means that both parties are to work at improving the workplace. The government has made clear that classification cannot be negotiated. It therefore has not changed the labour relations framework which exists in law and in Bill C-25.
Senator Gauthier: Change sometimes means risk. I think the matter has to be studied more closely.
[English]
Senator Cools: My question for you, minister, is about the oath of allegiance. I listened with care to the passages in the minister's introductory remarks about the oath of allegiance. I would like to say at the outset, minister, that I am hoping — as are many around this table — to be able to persuade you of the wisdom of reinstating the oath of allegiance in this bill.
The reasons are not merely sentimental. The oath of allegiance provides a moral structure in the sense of loyalty. In addition to that, there is a lot of social cohesion and a lot of unifying dimensions to the oath of allegiance.
I see something of a misapprehension in your statements. You suggest that you are emphasizing the employee- employer relationship over other elements of the relationship. However, if we could back up a moment, the public service used to be called the "civil service." I remember when I was quite young, every single envelope from government used to bear the letters OHMS, which stands for On Her Majesty's Service. Clearly, we had a clearer understanding what the public service was about.
You are now suggesting that the loyalty is to government. My understanding is that that is the antithesis of our constitutional system. I will ask you to re-examine what you said and to reconsider it because from my reading of it it is deeply flawed.
If there are public servants, whom are they serving? My understanding is that public servants were serving the public, not the government. Your statements here have confused those two functions. I do not mean to cause you any anxiety. My understanding is that those words have distinct meaning and that public servants are not only servants of the government but they are the servants of the public. That is my understanding of the term "public service."
Perhaps we could begin by clarifying in whose service are the public servants? I see you are thinking, so perhaps I can continue.
I would be very curious to know, Ms. Robillard — and this is a matter of great concern — in doing your research and preparation for this bill, and in developing these provisions, could you tell me how much did you study the law of allegiance and how much did you study the law of sovereignty? The question of the law of allegiance is deeply related to the question of sovereignty because, after all, in our country allegiance is owed to our sovereign, who is Her Majesty the Queen. The Queen is the enabling actuating power of the Constitution. Contrary to what you are saying in your remarks here, you are proposing a substantive and a substantial change in our system of government.
Ms. Robillard: First, I think I was clear in my statement as to why we chose to make mandatory the oath of office and secrecy for all new public servants and that the oath of allegiance would be more on a voluntary basis and not a required basis. When we revised the legislation, we looked at what is happening in our own country in terms of what kind of oath we require from public servants, who serve the public — as you said — on behalf of the government.
Senator Cools: No, no.
Ms. Robillard: I will come back to that.
We discovered that when the government passed the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, bill in both Houses, the oath of allegiance was no longer required for the public servants who work there. We looked at other countries, especially Commonwealth countries. We looked at what was the most important thing for a public service employee. I am not talking about an elected person, but a public service employee. The choice was made that the oath of office and secrecy was really important for the job that such a person would do every day. That is why it is in the legislation.
For the other aspect that you have raised, senator, I will ask Mr. LeFrançois to respond.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois, General Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force, Treasury Board Secretariat: It was felt that the oath of office and secrecy — the one that has been maintained with a few changes — fully sufficed for a public servant to know that he or she is required to be honest and loyal in his or her duties. As such, the oath of allegiance certainly adds a dimension that you mentioned, senator. However, in the view of the task force, it is not something that is necessary. That is evidenced in other Commonwealth countries that have quite a similar system of government as ours — notably the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. All citizens of Canada have a duty of loyalty to country and the Crown. Every citizen has that duty but the duty of the public servant is loyalty to the government at large and not just to the government of the day. The duty of loyalty is reflected in Bill C-25, Part 4, page 135, in respect of section 54 of the Public Service Employment Act. The bill states:
54. ...I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that devolve on me by reason of my employment in the public service of Canada...
The task force is of the view that that suffices and the oath of allegiance does not address the same issue.
Senator Cools: There is a difference between loyalty to an employer and the notion of allegiance. In any employee- employer relationship, the employer is entitled to loyalty. However, with all due respect, one is confusing the notion of loyalty with the notion of allegiance, which is a particular homage owed to the supreme magistrate of the country. For example, it entails the social contract as to who can go to war on your behalf, who can make peace on your behalf, who can take money out of your pocket in respect of taxes and who can conduct criminal prosecutions on your behalf. Allegiance is a much wider notion than loyalty to an employer.
In a era when so many of our communities seem to have lost sight of the principles that under-gird and overarch the system, the oath of allegiance provides a sense of moral character, of moral force and of constitutional principles to the very existence of the public service and its work.
For example, when I speak to Madam Robillard, I move on a premise that she is referred to as "the Honourable" and I am referred to as "the Honourable." That is all part of the oath of allegiance that is part of the honour of the Crown. I take it that when you appear, it is with all of the trappings of that honour because there is something in your conscience, your soul and your mind that makes you believe in what you are doing.
Those principles have a constitutional origin. You are here utilizing the honour of the Crown and that is part of the oath of allegiance. I am trying to say that this sense of the moral force for the purpose of the public service should be maintained in a way to give the public service and Canadians a higher standard to which to aspire, rather than only an addition to the loyalty between them and their individual managers. It is a much higher notion and what you are offering in this bill is a reduction in the concept of a country's allegiance to its sovereign and to the entire system of government. Ms. Robillard, I would ask that you reconsider this.
The phenomenon of the oath of allegiance is part of the sovereign's prerogatives. There is a custom in Parliament that when these prerogatives are affected, there should be a dialogue, perhaps including permission from Her Majesty. The language used in Parliament is a royal concept and not a royal asset.
Ms. Robillard, in respect of obtaining Her Majesty's view on the elimination of the oath of allegiance, have you had conversations with Her Excellency the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, or with Her Majesty? The business of changing, altering or eliminating the oath of allegiance is no simple matter to be done by a simple clause in a bill; it is a bit larger than you and your officials had contemplated.
Mr. LeFrancois: In response to your point on the role, if any, of the Governor General, it is our understanding that Royal Consent is only required in certain narrow circumstances where there is a potential effect on a prerogative of the Crown. It is our understanding, however, that this is not one of those cases.
We understand that there is no such Royal Prerogative that deals with the requirement of citizens to swear allegiance. That has not existed in the system that we have inherited from the United Kingdom. However, should one quarrel with that notion, we understand that if there had been a prerogative at some time, it would have been displaced by the Public Service Employment Act or its precursor, the Civil Service Act and, indeed, the Oath of Allegiance Act. In a nutshell, we are not of the view that the matter of swearing an oath of allegiance is a prerogative of the Crown. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to seek consent of the Governor General.
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, some of us in the Senate Chamber have raised this issue consistently over the past few years. We have discovered that the Royal Consent is necessary and must be obtained. Many government departments did not seem to know that or to understand that.
As a matter of fact, I remember vividly when we raised the question of the Royal Consent in Bill C-20, Senator Boudreau sat in Senate caucus one day and told me that he did not understand what I was talking about — he did not know the terms. It is interesting that there is no area of law more mysterious and arcane than the law of the prerogative. There is no area of law more frequently and widely used by government than the law of the Royal Prerogative.
The Chairman: We will have to leave it at that for now.
Senator Cools: Perhaps. However, I am asking Ms. Robillard to reconsider. We have had a good relationship and I believe that she is doing her best with this bill. I simply ask that she rethink it in light of my comments. In some Commonwealth countries, they are no longer obliged to swear the oath of allegiance. Our arrival at allegiance and at statehood has taken a different route. I would simply ask that Ms. Robillard reconsider.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: In your most recent report, the "Government On-Line — 2003" program received about $4 billion in funding over the last four years. Is that correct?
Ms. Robillard: That is right, $880 million were spent to enable our citizens, irrespective of where they live in Canada, be it in isolated regions or in our cities, to be served in the language of their choice — English or French — not only to receive government information on-line, but also to conduct transactions electronically. You got the figure right.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to the issue of responsibility, which is included in Bill C-25, by that I mean your on- going responsibility, how much do you invest in employee training each year?
Ms. Robillard: Perhaps Mr. Lahey could help me answer that question. It is always difficult to find out because each department is involved in employee training, and it also involves the participation of the Public Service Commission, right?
Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat: Yes, the minister is right. I do not have any specific figures with me now, but I can assure you that it is between 1 and 2 per cent of the public service payroll. Since the payroll is about $9 billion for public servants working for Treasury Board, it amounts to quite a lot.
Senator Ringuette: Can you give me a ballpark figure?
Mr. Lahey: It is about $200 million. It is actually more than that, since we do not necessarily include employee time and the value of that time. Departments spend direct funding on employee training. I think the actual amount is much higher, probably between 400 or $500 million. We can send the specific figures to the committee clerk.
Senator Ringuette: I would like a clarification on two points. There is a reference to between 400 and $500 million a year. Does that also include bilingualism training?
Mr. Lahey: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Minister, for at least 10 years now I have been receiving and transmitting with a great deal of vigour general complaints from the public with respect to geographic area restrictions. In my view, it is quite praiseworthy that you have invested a significant amount of money, as well as energy and efforts over the past three years in setting up work groups to modernize the public service.
However, as far as I am aware, there has been a recurrent complaint over the past 10 years, and probably longer. We have invested a billion dollars to put the government on line, that is to link up the public service and citizens. I think that this is a laudable and necessary measure. We have invested in training, the direct and indirect costs of which are approximately 400 to $500 million a year.
Today, once again it has been confirmed that the cost of buying software tools was as high as $40 million, that is a capital cost to be amortized over a 10 to 15-year period. Today I have been told, and I quote you:
If this bill is passed, I intend to set aside money for the implementation of this plan.
Madam Minister, does that mean to say that this money will be invested by your department only if Bill C-25 is passed? Should there not have been provision within the plans that have been developed over several years, including the plan to put the government on line?
You may know that over the past two months, several people who had been made aware of my grievances came to see me in my office. They stressed the point that $40 million was a huge amount. Yes, it is a great deal of money. For an individual citizen like me, it is a lot of money.
But when I look at the other costs of the Government On-Line Program, amounting to one billion dollars, when I look at the annual training costs of between 400 and $500 million, compared with the $40 million I am referring to, a capital investment cost to be amortized over a 10 to 15-year period, I must say in all sincerity that I am saddened.
Today, with geographic restriction areas, it is not only the fact that job opportunities are being taken away from all citizens. You mentioned that you had received representations mainly from Atlantic-region parliamentarians. I am sorry to say that it is not only the Atlantic parliamentarians but senators and parliamentarians from throughout the country, and not from any particular region, who are very disappointed with this geographic area criterion. A considerable pool of talent is thus excluded and prevented from working in the federal public service.
As a senator responsible for giving sober second thought to bills, in view of the grievances I have raised for the past decade, I cannot accept clause 34. I refuse to accept the claim that $40 million dollars is a large amount of money when it is not even certain that the investment will be made when millions and billions of dollars are being spent in other areas. Can you explain this situation to me, Madam Minister?
Ms. Robillard: Let me respond to certain elements raised by the senator. In theory, we are all in favour of a national area of selection for all employees of the public service. That being said, as part of my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board, I must also obtain a cost-benefit analysis before making a final decision.
It is true that I have not only received representations from colleagues from the Atlantic region. I specified the names of two colleagues in particular who have raised this issue with me on a regular basis in private conversations. I mentioned their names and of course there are others. I can tell you that the main concern, when this debate began, focused on all the jobs in the national capital area.
The quite justified idea behind this is that we would be able to have people influencing government policies from all regions of the country. Emphasis was placed by parliamentarians on the entire national capital area.
That being said, I already demonstrated, a year and a half ago, a certain openness in taking a closer look at this particular issue, under the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. For the past year and a half the Public Service Commission has been in contact with parliamentarians and set up pilot projects. Their report, Mr. Chairman, was just tabled last week and it contained an amount of $40 million.
I said that an amount has already been set aside for the modernization of the public service through the legislation. I have already provided for an amount in the budget, if this bill is adopted. I said that I undertook to set aside, out of this particular sum, the amount required for the implementation of this action plan. That means that in the short term, if the bill is passed, we will immediately be in the position to make money available for the commission to implement its action plan. That is one possibility.
The second possibility, should the bill not pass for all sorts of reasons, is that the issue will not addressed. We will require this additional $40 million and it will be necessary for me to identify the source of the funds. That is all I am saying, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly realized that with the volumes we received and the importance of Bill C-25, it will probably require a fairly long time for us to study the entire matter.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to raise a question I consider to be very important. It is this matter of favouritism, in clauses 68 and 69 of this bill with respect to the Public Service Commission. Reference is made to political intervention, to fraud but there is nothing dealing with bureaucratic favouritism or bureaucratic patronage of the type that occurs almost daily within the public service and within your modernization measures. This particular question was not included as a possible subject of complaints and investigations.
Ms. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the bill does contain a requirement that departments set up a conflict management system for our employees, as was explained by Ms. Boudrias. That means that as the internal selection process of the candidate occurs, there is the possibility to rectify mistakes. If at the end of the process, the candidate claims that the manager chose a particular candidate rather than another one because he is a personal acquaintance or for any other reason, we have set up an independent staffing tribunal for the public service. The reasons for an appeal for this tribunal were abuse of power. Members of the House of Commons made an amendment specifying that "abuse of power" could also include notably personal favouritism and bad faith. I think that it is explicit in our bill.
Senator Ringuette: I am quite aware of the difference between the establishment of a tribunal, responsibilities and circumstances that can give rise to complaints to a strictly internal tribunal. When I refer to clauses 68 and 69, I am thinking of public complaints that can be made to the commission with respect to staffing. Once again, there should be a clause enabling the Public Service Commission to hear complaints for the public with respect to favouritism in the bureaucracy.
Ms. Robillard: In response to Senator Ringuette question, allow me to read clause 66, which very clearly states:
The Commission may investigate any external appointment process and, if it is satisfied that the appointment was not made or proposed to be made on the basis of merit, or that there was an error, an omission or improper conduct that affected the selection of the person ...
Senator Ringuette: Why then clauses 68 and 69?
Ms. Boudrias: Clause 66 provides a very wide definition of the powers of investigation of the Public Service Commission and in keeping with decisions made by tribunals, improper conduct includes conducts resulting in a conflict of interest or personal favouritism.
But in clause 68, and this is very important, one is dealing with different situations where fraud may occur such as when managers provide, for example, questionnaires to employees or provide the answers to questions. The Public Service Commission does have the power to investigate external appointments as well as internal ones when fraud occurs. These powers were not delegated to the general administrators. They do have the power to take collective measures. The same applies in the cases of personal favouritism. If there is personal favouritism in the external process, the Commission has full powers of investigation and can take any corrective action including the revocation of the individual appointment.
We have set up a different system within the public service. As it now exists, there are the appeal directorates within the public service and we will have the staffing tribunal for internal appointments. We have retained the Commission's current powers with respect to matters of political interference, personal favouritism and fraud. Under the Investigation Act, the Commission can call witnesses and have access to any documents and there is both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Public Service Commission with respect to investigation, audit and the powers to revoke, none of which are delegated.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Madam Minister, in your notes, you mentioned, "streamlining our staffing system to improve our ability to attract and hire people when and where we need them." You do not mention getting rid of people in order to streamline.
The Chairman: That is a subversive idea.
Senator Mahovlich: I was in sport and I am very familiar with streamlining. I had to weigh in every day. We had no fat on our team. For 30 years now, if the government has not gotten rid of a certain amount of people, I understand why the public goes around saying, "You are part of the bureaucracy," and things of this nature.
Are you planning to get rid of people when you are doing this streamlining? The top corporation in the world, General Motors, automatically, every two or three years, will let 2,000 or 3,000 of their people go. I am wondering about this statement in your notes. Is part of your plan to get rid of some people?
Ms. Robillard: Senator Mahovlich, you have a very good point. That is one of the complaints that we hear. When we find that one person in the public service is not a competent person — and it is proven — it takes a very long time to be able to do anything about it. I have to tell you that, in the system right now, that is really not an incentive for the those who are very competent and work next to them. Your point is a very good one.
In the legislation, we made sure to make clarify the responsibility of the deputy heads to be able to take some disciplinary action. As well, we changed some things about the appeal system. I will ask Mr. Quail to explain what we did.
Mr. Ranald A. Quail, Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Treasury Board Secretariat: I am glad we do not have to weigh in every day.
The minister is quite right. However, first I would like to step back. We did not write the act to get rid of people. We wrote the act to deal with the way in which we manage people. Second, one of the things that the president and Ms. Boudrais heard around the country is that the system we have for dealing with poor performers is not good. We needed to improve that system.
The responsibility for dealing with poor performers is clear in the legislation. It is the deputy head's responsibility. The Treasury Board, as the employer, will set out the conditions for the guidelines and the policies for dealing with poor performers. It will then be up to the deputy head to enforce them.
You set the rules. You understand what the game is. If you do not play the game, you are a poor performer, and it is time to take action. Perhaps we can help you and give you some additional assistance, but at the end of day, the poor performer is let go. The test is poor performance.
If you are not happy with that, you can take it to an adjudicator. The adjudicator can look at the decision of the deputy head and make a determination. The bottom line is that this is a change in the way that we deal with poor performers. The level is not incompetence; it is poor performers.
The Chairman: We should adjourn now because senators have other commitments. We normally do adjourn now, but with your indulgence I would invite one question each from Senator Gauthier and Senator Bolduc who have asked for a second round.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: My question deals with official languages. The bill makes no reference to language training or to new responsibilities for Public Service Commission.
It does however refer to a public service tribunal independent of the commission. I want to make sure that official languages will be respected by this tribunal. A tribunal that does not respect a linguistic duality is not a good federal tribunal. Can you give me assurances that this tribunal will respect both official languages of the country, that judges will be able to hear a Canadian in the language of his or her choice without the assistance of an interpreter?
Ms. Robillard: We made a double check of the status of this tribunal. It is a federal tribunal and is obliged to respect section 16 of the Official Languages Act. So there is not cause to be worried in that respect.
Senator Gauthier: I have a supplementary question.
Ms. Robillard: Concerning language training?
Senator Gauthier: There is no mention of language training in the bill. You did not answer.
Ms. Robillard: The Public Service Commission is responsible for language training and Bill C-25 will not result in any change to that. You noted that this bill does create the new public service school. At the present time, the government is examining this question about who will be responsible for language training and the new school may perhaps be the most appropriate place.
It will be possible to do this through an administrative measure as soon as the government makes a decision. As a matter of fact, it is one of the recommendations of the Commissioner for Official Languages.
Senator Gauthier: Will the notices of competition for a position be published in both official languages of Canada?
Ms. Robillard: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Yes? It is not mentioned in the bill.
Ms. Robillard: We did not repeat all the elements of the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act continues to apply.
Senator Gauthier: I am only confirming it.
Ms. Robillard: You are quite right, Senator Gauthier.
Senator Bolduc: Madam minister, I have a remark and a question. I would have like to have seen you adopt the principle that I mentioned in the chamber during my speech on second reading.
Public servants are recruited by way of competition. A competition will result in the establishment of a list indicating by order of merit the names of the candidates found to be qualified. Appointments are to be made in the order in which the names are shown on the list.
It seems to me that this would have been very clear. It could have been the general rule for the public service with respect to recruiting and promotion. Then there would be exceptions and I can understand that, but it seems to me that it would have been so simple.
I said in my speech that I was not particularly fond of the French, that is no secret. But they are clear-thinking and that is what they said. The English have done the same thing in England and this was once the practice in Canada. It is very hard for me to see why we should set aside this practice in order to introduce a series of preferences. This contains all sorts of appointment priorities and preferences, including people who have worked in minister's offices.
I have nothing against ministers' offices but if they want to enter the public service let them go through the exams like everyone else. That being said, I know that nothing will be changed but honestly, I think that it is unfortunate. I have nothing against delegating all the operating responsibilities to administrators, including the competitions. I have confidence in the system of selection boards, it will work.
But these people are trustees, not owners. And when one is a trustee, one must act in such a fashion but here we are dealing with public matters. So I would have like to have seen some clarity and protection.
The Chairman: What is the question?
Senator Bolduc: The general administrators, that is the deputy ministers, cannot engage in politics. I agree with that but I think it would have been so clear for us to say that executives in the public service do not take part in politics. Otherwise, no one will believe anyone. I am talking about the senior officials and not simple employees.
There is what we can consider to be a trade off. Faced with changes and management, — governments change — one may remain in ones' position as guardian of the public good provided one is competent, loyal, discrete and honest. A whole series of ethical rules apply. That is why there is job security.
In other words, on one hand there is job security but on the other hand there is the trade off, that is one does not get involved in politics, one is discrete and one respects confidentiality. That has been the situation for 150 years in England. I do not see why it should not apply in Canada.
This principle is based on human nature: I am not exaggerating, I am not inventing anything new. It is a matter I have considered for ages and my conclusion is that it is based on human nature. That is what constitutes the strength of the parliamentary system. The system has been evolving for 300 years and it reflects a certain understanding of how things work.
The Chairman: I think that the minister understands your basic thrust.
Ms. Robillard: First of all, let me say that I read with interest all the speeches on second reading of the bill. So I am aware of what Senator Bolduc said. On your first point, Senator Bolduc, when you talk about an order of priority based on merit, you are returning to the present system.
Senator Bolduc: No.
Ms. Robillard: Yes, you are returning to the present system.
We are attempting to get out of this system with all the accumulated case law over the past years. Second, you talk about values and the ethics to be respected by members of the public service. I am in full agreement with you. Shortly, I will be in a position to publish the new code of values and ethics of the public service. As for political activities, you are suggesting the system that we now have. The present legislation prohibits almost any political activities on the part of all members of the public service. I suggest that you read the Supreme Court ruling. In the Osborne decision of the Supreme Court, it is clearly stated that our present legislation was discriminatory to some extent and that a closer look should be taken at the functions being carried out by people in order to have a more relative notion of their involvement in political activities. Basically, it means that a public servant is expected to be loyal, to do his work honestly but at the same time he should not be prevented from engaging in certain political activities. That means a certain balance. The present legislation was not balanced and that is what we have attempted to do with Bill C-25 but the Public Service Commission asked us for a supplementary amendment and we accepted it. We think that what you now have could result in the balance required in recognizing the dual responsibilities of a public servant who is also a citizen.
Senator Bolduc: We cannot prevent public servants from seeking to be a candidate but there are certain rules to be respected if that is what they want to do.
Ms. Robillard: Yes, that is true and it is up to the Public Service Commission to make a ruling.
Senator Bolduc: I am only referring to senior officials, those who provide advice to the State. Senator Cools said that the role of public servants was to serve citizens. That is the case for most public servants but senior officials serve the government.
[English]
The Chairman: I thank the minister and her officials for having come. As I said, we will have other opportunities to discuss this.
I did get a note from Senator Gauthier while you were speaking, asking whether the minister would accept written questions. Let me say that I am sure she will. I think the idea will be that, if members have written questions they wish to submit to the minister, she could reply to them, perhaps through the clerk, and then senators could have the answers distributed.
Ms. Robillard: There is no problem with that. If you would like my officials or myself to appear before your committee again, we are available.
The Chairman: I appreciate that very much. We all appreciate it.
The committee adjourned.