Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 8 - Evidence, May 5, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 5, 2004.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is meeting this day at 6:15 p.m. to study the following motion: in accordance with subsection 3(5) of the Act respecting employment in the public service of Canada, chapter P-33 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the Senate approves the appointment of Maria Barrados, of Ottawa, Ontario, as President of the Public Service Commission for a term of seven years.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Last April 22, the government tabled a motion in the Senate requesting that the Senate approve the appointment of Ms. Maria Barrados as Chair of the Public Service Commission.
Last April 27, the Senate, in its wisdom, referred the motion to our committee. We do not have many precedents to guide us. However, based on the two precedents we do have, we decided to invite the person in question, Ms. Barrados, who has been serving as Acting Chair since November.
The commission and the chair do not fall under the authority of a minister of the Crown. However, the motion we have before us tonight was introduced at the government's behest. Moreover, during the swearing in of Mr. Martin's government last November, the Prime Minister decided to bring about certain changes to ministerial accountability as concerns the public service more particularly by setting up the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency accountable to the President of the Privy Council. That is why we invited the Honourable Denis Coderre, President of the Privy Council to address us as the government's spokesperson. We are very happy to see he accepted our invitation and I thank him for having done so at such short notice.
[English]
We will begin with the minister, who has a brief opening statement, after which we will hear from Ms. Barrados. I will then entertain a motion that this committee report to the Senate recommending that the Senate approve the nomination of Ms. Barrados as president of the commission. If there is to be debate on the motion, we will have that in context.
Welcome to the witnesses.
The Honourable Denis Coderre, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada: I accepted the invitation because I do not get many, so when I have one I am pleased to be here.
Frankly, it is an honour to be here, for many reasons. I know you have been working quite a lot on the modernization of the Public Service Act. As you mentioned, my function as President of the Privy Council is to be in charge of the new human resource agency, the new public service school, and also official languages. It was important for me not only to accept, but also to speak in favour of the nomination of Ms. Barrados as president of the Public Service Commission.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to be here. Thank you for your invitation. It is an excellent initiative. More often than not, things are done in such a way that it turns to one's advantage to work together with Senate committees. Most certainly, in the context of my job, I think that we can walk down the road together for a distance as someone with my responsibilities really needs the point of view of both Houses. There is a lot to be done right now in view of the modernization of the public service. I will most certainly need your enlightenment. We will be able to work together, amongst other things, on the Whistle Blowing Act.
[English]
That is, the whistle-blower act. I hope that we will meet again. I am very happy to be here.
[Translation]
I will give you an update on the implementation of the Public Service Modernization Act. I am here to tell you that I fully support Ms. Maria Barrados' appointment.
[English]
As you will recall, the PSMA received Royal Assent on November 7, 2003. On December 12, 2003, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada was established, with the implementation of the PSMA as a key priority. On April 1, 2004, the new Canada School of the Public Service was established, combining the responsibilities of the former Canadian Centre for Management Development with responsibilities for professional and language training, transferred from the Public Service Commission. On the same date, responsibility for professional development programs and demographic research was transferred from the Public Service Commission to the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
[Translation]
Work is now underway to develop new policies, working tools and training and so on required for the implementation of the PSMA. Many different stakeholders are involved: the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada which is coordinating implementation efforts, the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Canada School of the Public Service, and departments to name a few. I am also very pleased to note that we have engaged the public service bargaining agents in the implementation process, through a variety of working groups and consultation committees.
We have also established a number of committees chaired by deputy ministers, which have broad representation from departments, agencies and bargaining agents. These committees are providing us with input and strategic advice on staffing and staffing recourse, the new labour relations framework, on accountability and performance measurement, on information systems requirements, and on learning and communications. Our working dates for implementation of the new legislation are December 2004 for the political activities provisions of the new Public Service Employment Act, March 2005 of the new Public Service Labour Relations Act and provisions of the Financial Administration Act, and December 2005 of the remainder of the Public Service Employment Act.
A project management approach has been adopted to ensure that all the various elements required for implementation are being developed and integrated and that progress is closely monitored. This approach will also be audited by the Office of the Auditor General.
[English]
Honourable senators, I am also pleased to support the appointment of Maria Barrados as president of the Public Service Commission. She brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to this role, given her experience in the Office of the Auditor General, where she held positions of increasing responsibility, including that of Assistant Auditor General, Audit Operations. She is well versed in employment matters, having conducted audits on human resource management and on public service renewal.
[Translation]
You understand how important this person is as she was appointed President of the Public Service Commission, and taking into account the work that has to be done and how important it is to have someone who knows the file well, who knows how things work and who will be fully involved in this new transition with a view to ensuring that we can all face the new challenges together.
[English]
I will be delighted to answer any questions you have. I cannot wait for questions from Senator Oliver, of which I am sure there will be some, but also, Monique Boudrias will be here to help me with technicalities.
The Chairman: I apologize for not having introduced Ms. Boudrias, whom we know. Ms. Boudrias is the Executive Vice-President of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
Senator Oliver: Minister, I have a number of questions about the new structures that have been undertaken since you were appointed to your new position in the Privy Council and Mr. Alcock to the Treasury Board. He has appeared before our committee. One of the things that struck me, in part, about his evidence is that he can only go so far before saying, ``I had better stop because that is Mr. Coderre's area.'' We have the public service, we have Treasury Board, and I do not understand the structure.
Could you briefly paint a picture of where the accountability starts, and the parameters of these new divisions?
Mr. Coderre: I will answer briefly, but we have a specific chart on responsibilities and I will be more than pleased to send it to you, for the benefit of this committee.
Basically, my role is as I have said. First, everything regarding the new agency of human resources is under the President of the Privy Council.
Senator Oliver: And the new school of public service?
Mr. Coderre: Yes, and everything regarding official languages. The Public Service Commission — and Ms. Barrados will be able to answer those questions better than I — and everything regarding human resources will be under the President of the Privy Council. For now, the labour relations — because, as you know, we are in some negotiations with the unions — are under the Treasury Board Secretariat. Eventually, it will be under Public Works. Everything regarding human resources, the link with human resources and training and representatives, things of that nature, will be under that agency, but the hiring is under the commission itself.
The situation within the public service will be under the agency. That agency will have wide responsibilities.
Ms. Monique Boudrias, Executive Vice-President, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada: I believe the minister has covered it.
Senator Oliver: Could you tell me what will be left in Treasury Board now?
Mr. Coderre: The wallet. Basically, it is the money.
Senator Oliver: They will be finished with the school and with resource management and so on, and the Public Service Commission will do the auditing. The Treasury Board will be the money?
Mr. Coderre: That is my understanding.
The Chairman: Who is the employer?
Ms. Boudrias: The employers are the Treasury Board ministers. Presently, they have two departments supporting the employer. The Treasury Board Secretariat still supports the employer on the labour relations, collective bargaining and pensions and benefits.
We, the agency, support the employer, the council of ministers, on the issues of employment equity, classification, official languages, values and ethics, employment policies and so on.
The Chairman: Will the mandate for the bargainers come from Treasury Board?
Ms. Boudrias: Yes.
Senator Oliver: I have one final question for the minister. The reason we are meeting tonight is the motion before us on the appointment of Ms. Barrados as the head of the Public Service Commission. It is for a term of seven years. Would you like to comment on the proposed term? Why the number seven? Why not ten or five? Where did the number come from and what is its significance?
Mr. Coderre: That is a good question.
Ms. Boudrias: That number came from a comparison that we did with the Auditor General, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. We looked at the different numbers of years. Most, but not all, of the agents of Parliament are appointed for seven years now.
Mr. Coderre: Within the new whistle-blowing act, the future commissioner of integrity will also have a mandate of seven years.
Senator Day: When this committee studied at length the old Bill C-25 in the last session — it is interesting the number is the same in the different sessions — we talked a lot about the importance of allowing managers to manage and making them accountable. Since that time, eight months ago, there has been an unfortunate series of events; I am thinking in particular of the Privacy Commissioner. I wonder if any of the events that have occurred since we passed the Public Service Modernization Act have knocked off course the plan or the direction to allow the managers to manage. Are we still moving in that direction?
Mr. Coderre: Public service in the 1970s and the 1980s was more like silos. It was more vertically arranged, from department to department. I have felt, since I took over that responsibility, that the horizontal approach is a key factor. The new agency of human resources is a good way to ensure that kind of management. We know that efficiency will only come if we have a horizontal approach.
Of course, there is a chain of command, with management at the top, but at the same time, it is important to believe in regions. When there are issues in different regions, it is important for different departments to talk to each other. In Canada now, with globalization, the machinery will have to follow and address some of those issues. You cannot do it by working in silos. There are some specifics, some criteria that must be managed, but I believe that management at the horizontal level is important.
Decision-making is also important in making the machine responsible, from the top to the bottom, at every level. That is how I feel about the new agency. We are totally focused on it.
Senator Day: We have not moved away from the theory of getting the power to the managers and making sure they are accountable for their actions?
Mr. Coderre: We want to make sure we provide the tools for good monitoring. I will give you a good example: official languages. If there is something that I am very sensitive to, it is representatives in official languages. I have also been Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as you are aware. We have worked together on several issues in your region.
When we need a decision-maker or someone who is bilingual, he or she will go to the school to learn the language, but not just to pass the test. We must make sure that after five years, when we do the monitoring, when we see the evolution of the situation, that that person is efficient and bilingual for a specific job that needs a bilingual person.
The most important thing for us is to have the agencies and the public service school so that we have ongoing training in language, management, financial management or whatever. If we want to be efficient and competitive and ensure that we can deliver good service and represent the new realities in the field, it is important to have that monitoring. I am totally dedicated to that.
Senator Day: You used the term ``monitoring.'' My friend, Senator Oliver, mentioned auditing. Who will do the monitoring and the auditing? Is it Public Service Commission personnel?
Ms. Boudrias: In terms of the programs and policies for which the agency is responsible, we are doing the monitoring because it is an executive function of government. You raised the example of the Privacy Commissioner. We did the monitoring and also did an audit. It depends on the issue. We did an audit on classification but not on staffing. All the monitoring and auditing on staffing will continue to be the responsibility of the commission. Ms. Barrados will probably be able to address that later on.
Our agencies are accountable for making sure we have monitoring programs. When the monitoring programs indicate to us there are major issues, then we will audit some department or agency.
Senator Day: With respect to the auditing that will be done by the Public Service Commission, we were told a year ago that that auditing oversight function was severely depleted over the past few years. They are obviously building that up, I would assume, at this time. Is that ongoing?
Ms. Boudrias: Our understanding is that Ms. Barrados is looking into that now and she is realigning her organization to focus more on auditing.
Senator Day: Did I understand the answer to a question from our chairman, that what they will be auditing are the rules with respect to hiring that are set by another body, being the Treasury Board?
Ms. Boudrias: No. The Public Service Commission is still responsible, in the current legislation and the new bill, for developing policies for staffing. They are still accountable for the appointment of people from outside and those being promoted within, but they have a delegation framework with the departments. They are accountable for investigating, monitoring and auditing all the things related to staffing.
Senator Day: Therefore, the rules with respect to the area of hire, for example, about which I am sure my colleague, Senator Ringuette, will ask some questions, will be determined by the Public Service Commission?
Ms. Boudrias: Yes.
Senator Day: We have heard, through Treasury Board, about a new internal financial-type audit. Would that have anything to do with your department, a comptroller-general type of financial audit?
Mr. Coderre: It is the Secretary of the Treasury Board who is in charge of that. I can ask him the question, though.
Senator Day: We were a little concerned that these individuals would report to the managers in the various departments. We are trying to figure out how they report. Do they report back to Treasury Board or to the manager?
Mr. Coderre: You are talking about management; human resources are one thing; and the financial accountability by itself, which is the duty of the Treasury Board Secretariat. There are two things here. Of course, management has different parts. My part is to make sure that we do the monitoring in the work environment.
Everything regarding human resources, the ongoing training, official languages, will be my responsibility, but everything regarding finance will be under Treasury Board.
Senator Day: What about bonuses for performance? Where does that fit into the scheme? Who determines that? Do the managers do that exclusively, or do they talk to you and say they have been monitoring these people and they have been meeting all the standards?
Mr. Coderre: We are in charge of the application of the policy, not the departments, and we have a review.
Senator Day: You monitor what the managers decide, but the managers would make the decisions on the bonuses for their department?
Mr. Coderre: Yes.
Ms. Boudrias: The program and policy are set such that the agency is responsible for the policies and their strategic direction. We give guidance to the departments on how to develop their management contracts at the beginning of the fiscal year, how they set the measurement indicators, how they measure people during the year, and the objectives that people have to meet. We give the departments a framework, and each department adjusts that based on their programs and policies and the service that they have to deliver to Canadians.
They have a set of objectives and standards that they have to meet at the end of the fiscal year, and also a set percentage and rating that they have to meet. Within those parameters, deputy heads are accountable for the evaluation of their people and allocating the percentage of money to each of those executives in the public service. This year, we have a new monitoring program for that. At the end of the fiscal year, when they have finished doing that, the agencies will report to us and we will be reviewing each department's ratings and allocation.
As long as they are within the allocated money and ratings in terms of the policy framework, we will approve the final decision, and we will send an approval to the deputies so they can pay their people. If they are not meeting the requirements of the policies and indicators that we have given them, there will be a review by us and by the committee of senior officials chaired by the Clerk of the Privy Council. That committee will be reviewing any gaps between what they were supposed to do and what they decided to do in their departments. Until there is a final decision, the deputy heads will not be allowed to pay the executives in their departments.
Senator Day: Could you share with us those parameters that are given to the managers so that we have a feeling for them?
Senator Oliver: Does that include the diversity agenda?
Ms. Boudrias: In terms of the corporate priorities as enunciated by the clerk, yes, we can also share that with you.
The Chairman: Since our exchange a few minutes ago, Ms. Boudrias, I have had a chance to glance at a press release put out by the Prime Minister's Office on the day of the swearing-in of the new government. On this question of collective bargaining, the press release says that all functions related to human resources management, except for collective bargaining and staff relations, currently carried out by the Treasury Board Secretariat are being transferred to the agency, your agency, under Mr. Coderre. Then it says that following discussions with the public service unions, responsibility for collective bargaining and other staff relations activities will be transferred from the Treasury Board Secretariat to Public Works and Government Services Canada to reflect the need for a more collective approach to the management of the government's human resources.
Can you tell me, for clarification, where the responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat with respect to collective bargaining end and where those of the Department of Public Works and Government Services begin?
Ms. Boudrias: At this point, Mr. Chairman, the decision on moving collective bargaining and labour relations to PWGSC has not been taken. There was no transfer pursuant to that announcement because they are still discussing the issue with the unions and the bargaining agents. At this time, I can say that all the collective bargaining and labour- relations issues are still under the prerogative of the President of the Treasury Board until there is a final decision by the Prime Minister on the machinery issues related to that.
The Chairman: I will not press the point. The wording of the press release suggests to me that the consultation had taken place and that the decision had been made.
Mr. Coderre: If I may, we had also some discussion with the union leaders at one point, and we decided at that time that it would be more appropriate to tackle first things first, to go through the negotiations now, the bargaining, and finalize that. The Prime Minister is pretty flexible.
Senator Oliver: Earlier, minister, when you were making your remarks on the timetable for the legislation, you said December 2004 for the political activity component, March of 2005 for the Labour Relations Act, and December of 2005 for the Public Service Employment Act. I was of the understanding that those would be bills that you would be bringing in and have jurisdiction over, but it seems that is not right. According to what Senator Murray has just read, will that power and authority be going to Public Works?
Mr. Coderre: There are two different things. We are talking about bargaining power, which was under the President of the Treasury Board, and there was a press release saying that after that negotiation, after the collective bargaining with the unions, it would go to Public Works. The responsibility was supposed to be transferred from the President of the Treasury Board to the Minister of Public Works. It is not yet the case. As we said, it is difficult. We will complete the negotiation that is ongoing now, and then we will make a final decision.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If you covered this before I arrived, please refer me to the blues and I will not take up more time. I want to ask one question arising from criticism, whether justified or not, of a hiring policy that limits the advertising of certain jobs to the region in which the vacancy has occurred. The criticism is that qualified people outside the region either are not allowed to become candidates or do not have the information to become candidates. Could you explain whether my interpretation is correct, and certainly if it is not, perhaps you could correct it?
[Translation]
Mr. Coderre: First, this policy is under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. When we set up the implementation of Bill C-25 — the other Bill C-25 — on the modernization of the public service, we set aside a certain amount of money to deal with this matter of hiring and the regions. Pilot projects were then set up, region by region, to see what the impact would be. As we speak, there is an ongoing analysis on the impact of the hiring policies on a sector of regions. Questions were put in the House of Commons on that matter. You also raised some in the Senate. Dr. Barrados will be in a better position to answer you.
Right now, there is the real question of the provenance of funds. Together with the Public Service Modernization Act, $38 million were provided for this initiative. There are negotiations underway between the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board Secretariat, with very specific criteria, in order that, after those pilot projects, those amounts will be available to deal with the questions you have raised about hiring.
Dr. Barrados will address that question more specifically as it comes under the Public Service Commission.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We will wait for her presentation.
[English]
Senator Oliver tells me that you touched on this before. In the Senate we have been pushing a private bill from Senator Kinsella on whistle-blowing. You tabled one in the House that has not been received with great enthusiasm in certain cases, including the whistle-blowing ombudsman, for lack of a better term. It does not seem encouraging for those who have something to say. One would hope that protection would be in place for those people.
What priority will you give the bill before a certain announcement is made by the Prime Minister within the next two or three weeks?
Mr. Coderre: It is business as usual. It is a priority for us and definitely for me. I would disagree with the premise of your question; I think the opposite is true. We planned it with a balanced approach. Many questions were raised about the independence of the commissioner, about whether we could go directly to the commissioner. Is there a way to ensure that we protect the whistle-blower? Frankly, when you read the bill, we are sending a clear message in clauses 22 and 23 that departments have no choice but to provide the information. Departments must comply. It is the same for a ministry as it is for the Public Service Commission. There is one small inclusion that is quite interesting. There is a process for special reports. If the commissioner informs a deputy minister that a situation must be corrected, but he does not do it, then the commissioner can go directly to the minister and tell him that something must be done. The commissioner will have the capacity at any time to issue any number of reports, or a special report. Through this proposed legislation, the minister in charge of that agency would then be obliged to deposit that report with Parliament within 10 days. I believe that not only is the commissioner independent, but he also has an executive function. It is good that he will be accountable under a minister.
The proposed whistle-blowing act is focused on two things: First, to protect the whistle-blower, and second, to ensure that everyone is compliant with the act. There may be a valid denunciation of a problem or there may be a frivolous complaint lodged as a kind of personal vendetta. Whistle-blowers in the latter case must face the consequences of their actions. There is a balance that sends a clear message. This is important to me. After first reading, it went straight to the standing committee. We want to ensure that it becomes legislation because it is a future charter of the public service. We believe that the framework should be addressed by Parliament. If some issues need clarification, we will be pleased to address them. We will have a code of conduct that will also be under the standing committee. Regulations will be addressed by Parliament.
When we introduced the bill, we had a series of consultations with union leaders, deputy ministers and representatives of the parliamentary process. I think it will be good legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The purpose of this act is to maintain the balance to make sure that the accused is protected against spurious allegations and make sure it is not a personal vendetta. This legislation has been years in the making and I wonder why.
[English]
There were cases where the grounds for prosecution turned out to be accurate. It was an awkward, fragile position for them to be in and their jobs were in jeopardy. Some of them did not receive promotions because they told the truth. If legislation had been in place, they would have been afforded some protection. You are probably more familiar with this than anyone else in this room. This proposed legislation was not in place to protect those individuals and will not be in place for a long time yet.
The Chairman: I am sure that the answer will be interesting, but three senators are waiting to ask questions.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: May I have an answer, please?
The Chairman: One moment, please. We have not got to the main event.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We still have time.
The Chairman: Just a minute, please. As well, we are to hear from the interim president of the Public Service Commission. With three more senators on the list now, I would hope that we might get back to the motion that is before us rather than range too widely into other matters, such as whistle-blowing legislation, that will be before us in due course. If you have a succinct answer to that question, minister, I think we might end it there and I will move on to others.
[Translation]
Mr. Coderre: I look to the future and not back at the past. We have shouldered our responsibilities, there is legislation now and we must look to the future. Before, there was a Public Service integrity officer and now there will be legislation. So we should be happy about that and work together to have an extra tool to protect those who want to do their duty.
Senator Ringuette: Minister, Ms. Boudrias certainly must have told you about my complaints concerning Bill C-25 before you came here. You mentioned that you believe in the regions and also in bilingualism.
I would like to know what you are going to suggest as a concrete action plan to Treasury Board to get those funds in order to get rid of the present process which discriminates against Canadians living in our regions who are automatically refused, first by machines, access to positions in the public service. I would even go farther but I have not finished with my investigations or even my requests. I met a young woman living near Ottawa who has applied for many positions for which she was qualified. The data system did not automatically reject her based on her postal code, thank goodness. On the other hand, in her CV she did not have certain key words that the data-processing system uses to process the application further.
Sincerely, we have serious problems. We have young people who wish to offer their services to the public service from one end of the country to the other. Sixty per cent of all jobs within the federal public service are in Ottawa and are open to only 0.3 per cent of the population and that is unacceptable.
The candidates, in that 0.3 per cent of the population, who do not put in the right key words in their application are rejected by the system.
Programs are set up to recruit young trainees. However, this new public service agency only seems to create smoke and mirrors job creation programs for the bureaucracy.
What do you intend to do to fix this problem?
Mr. Coderre: I understand your concerns. However, you must be aware, as you have sat on both sides of the House, that there is a protocol and everyone has their own responsibilities.
The whole matter of employment policy and regional policy comes under the Public Service Commission. Things are not done overnight.
New legislation has just come in force on the modernization of the public service. We cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that the agency is a public employee machine.
Last week, I met the human resources management directors in Quebec City. The work is in progress and we have to give it enough time to come to fruition.
Some funds are provided for implementation after the pilot project. Besides, Ms. Barrados will address that question and the matter of her responsibilities.
We will consider all factors. The public service is a living tool that must evolve. The people responsible will do their work within the context of their duties and responsibilities.
The system which will allow us to evaluate situations within the machine of government will also allow us to adjust. The fact that we will also speak horizontally means that we will be able to adapt.
We are talking about a Canada School of the Public Service. You raised the matter of recruitment and rightly so. We have to improve our methods of recruitment and ensure representativity both linguistically and for visible minorities in the image of Canada. That must not necessarily be done at the expense of the regions.
Things have to be done properly and the Public Service Commission has the role of meeting that objective. The active chair who, I hope, will soon become the permanent chair will be able to tell you about the proposed strategy far better than I.
This is a transition period. We are aware of the situation and the questions that must be addressed. So we will analyze the whole and take on our responsibilities.
I understand that there can be some specific cases we hold dearer to our hearts. Their impact is more significant in the regions. However, in light of the proposed framework, we will be in a position to ensure that each and everyone may be able to do their own work. I am quite aware of that priority.
[English]
Senator Downe: Minister, I know how busy you are and I appreciate you taking the time to be here this evening.
I have a couple of questions about the independence of this position. I assume the government made the appointment this way, through Parliament, as opposed to OIC to give independence to the chair. Is that your thinking as to the process?
Mr. Coderre: This is not like the Auditor General, who is appointed by the two chambers. That is why there is a motion before the Senate. We have done the same in the House of Commons.
Senator Downe: The previous president was appointed for a term of up to 10 years. Why did you choose seven? Was it because some others had been done that way?
Ms. Boudrias: There were analyses as well as some trends we looked at concerning how long former presidents were in the job. We came to the conclusion that not many had stayed for the full 10 years. When looking at a systemic approach, we wanted to look at how new commissioners, like the Information Commissioner, who is an agent of Parliament, are appointed. They are appointed for seven-year terms. We also looked at to what extent an executive agency such as the commission should be more comparable to an agent of Parliament.
Senator Downe: There are some positions that have longer terms, such as the Chief Electoral Officer. I am not sure why you ruled that out.
Ms. Boudrias: We did not rule it out. We looked at the different options the government had. We thought that seven years was a good number of years for a person to stay in the position.
Senator Downe: It is a renewable appointment, is it not?
Ms. Boudrias: Yes. On the decision of the government, another term can be added.
Senator Downe: I am trying to get this clear. The person who holds the position is appointed this way so that he or she has independence from the government?
Ms. Boudrias: Not necessarily, no. It is an executive agency. It is not an agent of Parliament, such as the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer or the Information Commissioner. Because it is an executive agency, it is an appointment of the government, but on the recommendation and the approval of the two Houses.
Senator Downe: Therefore, the budget is set by Treasury Board and not by Parliament.
Ms. Boudrias: Yes.
Senator Downe: Tell me about the part-time members. Are they 50 per cent part time, 80 per cent part time? Do you know how much of a part-time responsibility they will have?
Ms. Boudrias: That is at the discretion of the government and the president of the commission. Dr. Barrados will be in a better position to answer you in terms of how she sees the mandate and its part-time elements applying in her new organization with the new direction and the new legislation.
Senator Downe: They are appointed by the government, not by the president, is that right?
Ms. Boudrias: Yes. She is the best person to talk to you about establishing the number of hours she needs them to work with her.
Senator Downe: Do you have any indication of how many you are planning on appointing? You are allowed two or more. Obviously, you will have two, but will you have 20 or 30 more?
Ms. Boudrias: The minimum is two, as you said, senator. It will be up to the president of the commission to discuss with the government a need for additional commissioners, based on workload, representativeness and regional representation. She will have some discussion with the government as to her needs in achieving her goals.
Senator Downe: Are these part-time appointments for seven years as well?
Ms. Boudrias: I do not recall that we had a specific length of time for the part-time commissioners.
Senator Downe: My concern is this. If you appoint two or three people and they have a very heavy workload, they would have to be Ottawa based as opposed to regionally based; is that right?
Ms. Boudrias: Again, senator, I would rather have Ms. Barrados answer those questions. I think that she has a better appreciation of how she sees the restructuring of her agency.
Senator Downe: Although the government appoints them.
Ms. Boudrias: Yes.
Mr. Coderre: It is at arm's length.
The Chairman: You do not have a view on how many part-time commissioners should be appointed. You have not appointed any yet, have you?
Mr. Coderre: No. First, it is important to work with the president. The president is better situated to address those questions.
The Chairman: These are not subject to parliamentary approval?
Mr. Coderre: The commissioner is, yes.
The Chairman: But the part timers?
Mr. Coderre: No, they are not.
Senator Downe: I was finished, but you just jogged my memory on reimbursement for the part timers. I assume there is a salary range for the president. Is there a similar range for the part timers or is it a per diem rate?
Ms. Boudrias: It is a per diem.
The Chairman: It remains only for me to thank the minister and Madame Boudrias for having appeared.
[Translation]
I trust that the committee will have an opportunity to do a more in-depth examination of the questions raised this evening by committee members.
[English]
I thank you for coming and for your cooperation in answering the questions that were asked of you.
Now, colleagues, we will invite Dr. Barrados, the acting president of the Public Service Commission, to come to the table.
[Translation]
Dr. Barrados is accompanied by Mr Gaston Arsenault, General Counsel of the Public Service Commission.
[English]
Welcome, Dr. Barrados, we wanted to have you here. You are no stranger to this and other parliamentary committees, but we wanted to have you here to discuss with you your plans for the Public Service Commission, given that you are already in business, have been since November, as acting president. I take it you have an opening statement to make, after which we will open the floor to questions and comments.
Ms. Maria Barrados, Interim President, Public Service Commission: Thank you very much for inviting me here this evening. I have with me Mr. Gaston Arseneault, Senior Legal Counsel at the Public Service Commission.
It is an honour to be here to discuss my nomination as president of the Public Service Commission of Canada, and I am indeed honoured to be recommended for this position.
[Translation]
I come to this position with over 25 years of experience at the Public Service Commission. I worked in a Crown corporation, for a short period, in a department, and, most recently, in the Office of the Auditor General.
For almost 10 years, I held the position of Assistant Auditor General at the OAG, where I was proud to participate in work that I believe has made a difference for Canadians. I was responsible for audits and studies on a range of issues, including human resources management, public service renewal, and accountability and for reporting performance to Parliament in the estimates.
[English]
I am a sociologist by training, with a lifelong interest in theoretical and practical issues surrounding equity, fairness and social justice, issues that have influenced my volunteer work in the community.
Since I was nominated, just as Parliament prorogued in November, I have been acting as the interim president of the PSC for over five months. This time has allowed me to learn about the organization and I am now pleased to be in the final stages of my confirmation as president of the PSC.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the historical role of the PSC, the upcoming changes to the organization and my vision for the future. The PSC's roots go back to 1908, when Parliament formally recognized that good government requires a body to oversee and regulate appointments and promotions within the federal public service by creating the civil service commission.
[Translation]
In 1967, the Civil Service Commission became the Public Service Commission, and over the years its influence and mandate have changed greatly. Today, the PSC is an independent agency reporting to Parliament, responsible for overseeing the merit system in federal public service staffing and promotion. Canadians and Parliament rely on the PSC to ensure a representative, competent public service that is non-partisan and able to serve Canadians in the official language of their choice.
[English]
This confirmation hearing is one of the steps in the next stage in the development of the PSC, the implementation of the new Public Service Modernization Act, which should be in place by 2006. The new roles of PSC are set out in the new act, which gives specific direction on staffing and recruitment issues, including delegation, accountability, audit and investigation, and on the political activity of public servants. Under this legislation, the PSC has been given a more focused mandate. We will concentrate more on oversight, with clear implications for some necessary organizational changes.
For example, our capacity to carry out audits will need to be significantly strengthened; the type of investigations carried out will need to be changed; the appeals function will be phased out; a number of service activities will be performed elsewhere, and those that remain will be clearly separated out from the oversight activities; development of regulations for political activities by public servants; and a new governance structure for the commission and its part- time commissioners will need to be put in place.
The new commission will consist of at least two part-time commissioners and the president. Their role will be to renew and approve strategic direction and policies, approve regulations, inclusion orders and requests for political leave, and report annually to Parliament.
Commissioners will not have any management responsibilities and will delegate to the president operational responsibilities under the existing PSEA. They will be Order in Council appointments.
[Translation]
In brief, the PSC's job will be to oversee that the merit system in the public service is supported and upheld, to communicate clearly to departments what is required and how they are doing, and to report back to Parliament on our progress.
My personal objectives, if I am confirmed in the position of President of the PSC, are: to implement the spirit and intent of the Act, that is to modernize employment in the federal public service; to look after the employees of the PSC as the organization transforms; and to continue to deliver quality programs and services as part of our current and ongoing obligations.
[English]
As we move forward, I welcome the opportunity to work with Parliament in reviewing Estimates documents, annual reports, and any other issues that may be of interest to Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian government created the organization that led to the PSC almost 100 years ago. That first body was given a mandate to protect merit in the system and to protect against patronage, both political and bureaucratic. I look forward to working with you and to do that to the best of my ability.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Oliver: Dr. Barrados, one of my first questions is what things will you audit, how will these audits take place, and will they be done by a financial auditor?
Second, I am very interested in parliamentary oversight, and on two occasions you referred to your role with Parliament and said that you want to report back to Parliament on your progress. I want to know how you see yourself coming before Parliament. Would it be a committee such as this? How regularly? Would you want to do it quarterly, once a year? The other interesting thing you say about parliamentary oversight and accountability is that not only would you be reviewing Estimate documents and annual reports, but also any other issues that may be of interest to Parliament. I would like to you elaborate on that.
Does that mean if there were an issue that a particular Senate committee feels needs to be analyzed and they wanted to hear from you, it would be necessary just to phone or write and have you appear before the committee to address it? How flexible would you be on that?
Ms. Barrados: I will try to answer your questions very briefly, and if you have more you can ask me to expand.
On the audit side, unfortunately, I do not have much of an audit function right now. There are about six or seven auditors in place and we are in the process of building that up. How will we go about doing that? We will develop an audit plan that would do two things. We will ensure that we cover of all the activities in government in a routine way, but we will also drive it by being risk-based. Therefore when there is an area of risk, then that is where we will put our audit effort.
The work will be done by professionals who have two types of experience. We would be looking for those who have audit experience.
Senator Oliver: Do you mean financial audit experience?
Ms. Barrados: The type of experience you would get in internal audit or in the Office of the Auditor General, but we are also looking for people who have knowledge of and experience in human resource management and staffing.
We have to marry those two. To do that, we will follow standard procedures and protocols, much like the kind of approach that the Auditor General takes, with the external audit and their value for money audits in terms of the general methodology.
With respect to reporting to Parliament, currently, the old legislation, the old PSCA, provides for one report a year from the Public Service Commission that is transmitted to the House by the Minister of Heritage, so it is a transmittal role. With the new legislation, there are two ways that the Public Service Commission can report. One is through that annual report route, but also, any special report can be placed directly with Parliament without going through a minister.
In addition to that, if there are any areas of interest within the mandate of the Public Service Commission, we would be ready to come and discuss them with members of Parliament. For example, we made a presentation to the Government Operations Committee on the whistle-blowing legislation because we felt that aspects of that bill had a relationship to the Public Service Employment Act.
You asked how many times I would come. I would come as many times as I am invited.
Senator Oliver: Given the limited number of auditors you have now, what do you see the audit division of the PSC growing to in the next 12 months? You have many departments to audit.
Ms. Barrados: We are doing not only audits, but also what I call ``active monitoring.'' We have delegation agreements, and I will have teams of people looking at how well those are working, and we will be doing annual assessments of those agreements. I am not calling those people my ``auditors.''
Your question specifically was how many will there be in 12 months. It will grow slowly, and I have to reallocate resources. As far as I can do that, I am putting in auditors. I hope that I will be able to double it by the end of the first year, and then as soon as I have a critical mass and I can get the budgets reallocated, we may be able to grow more rapidly.
Senator Oliver: Do you have the legal powers now to do the types of audit that you want to do, such as demanding documentation and being able to get from a department what you need to do your job?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, I do.
Senator Ringuette: I had the great pleasure of having an extensive meeting with Madame Barrados in January, and I was very impressed by her vision. I have a few short questions, almost as a follow-up to our meeting.
Last October, the Auditor General issued a report indicating that with respect to summer student employment with the federal government, 25 per cent of those jobs had been filled through bureaucratic patronage. Have you put any plans in place to eliminate that for the upcoming summer?
Ms. Barrados: That was a report done by the Public Service Commission. I was in the Auditor General's office at that time and I did not write it; my predecessor's staff wrote that report. They did find a problem with the summer student employment program. They have been working very hard to take corrective measures. They notified the departments, and not only that, they are also looking at any of the circumstances where they see the screening requirements are too tight, and they are not filling those positions. There is now an active monitoring of that process, and the auditors have gone back, and will go back, to ensure it is corrected.
Senator Ringuette: At the end of the summer, will there be a follow-up audit to see if that 25 per cent has been reduced through your action plan?
Ms. Barrados: The amount of auditing will be determined by the assessment of the risk, if there is any sense that the corrective measures we have taken have not worked. That means we are actually checking now, and we are checking not only what is happening, but also the referrals. We are not making the referrals. If that has not worked, we would audit again.
Senator Ringuette: You expressed to me at our meeting in January that you were working on an action plan to eliminate the geographic restrictions on the hiring. You were at the phase of looking at the budget to be able to implement that action plan.
Is your action plan completed? Do you have the budget, and what is the time frame? Another major issue is the delegation of power to managers. How many, in this new budget year of 2004-05, have submitted a human resource plan to your office?
Ms. Barrados: On the first question, regarding the national area of selection, as you heard the minister say, we do have the money that has been approved as part of the implementation of the new legislation. As the minister also said, I have not managed to get the approvals from Treasury Board to spend that money. I am still going through the approval process. I am assured that we are close, but I do not have it.
Senator Ringuette: That is four months.
Ms. Barrados: Yes. I am working very hard at it, but we still do not have that. As we discussed, I cannot implement a broadening of the national area of selection any faster until I have the tools in place. Otherwise, if I said, ``All right, tomorrow we broaden the whole area of selection so all the officer jobs in the national capital area have a national area of selection,'' then the volume of applications would be so high that we would never get around to hiring anyone. We must do this in a responsible manner. We must have the tools in place to do it, and I just have not received those approvals. The minute I have that all approved, then I will be able to say how fast I can move. I have told my staff, after the discussions I had with you, Senator Ringuette, and other members of Parliament, that we really should take less time than four years, because I certainly get the message about how people feel about that policy.
Senator Ringuette: What about the HR plans from managers, as a follow-up to the delegation of authority for hiring and so forth?
Ms. Barrados: That is part of the new regime, and right now there are delegation arrangements in place. We are looking at all those again, and as part of renewing of them, that element of planning is part of that. We are, for example, having a session for all human resource management specialists in the government in June, where we will have a workshop on HR planning for the participants because of the importance, obviously, of having good HR plans as they move forward.
Senator Ringuette: Just to give you an indication of how strongly I feel, in the Canadian Constitution, which is the paramount law of this country, there is an article that says that provincial governments cannot put up barriers to Canadians moving from one province to another to gain meaningful employment.
If the Canadian Constitution can impose that on provincial governments, why can we not be models? I guess therein lies the main argument to the Treasury Board and to the PCO, that the federal government cannot be blind or say, ``Oh, no. We do not have any responsibility towards that article in the Constitution.''
We are the people that put that Constitution together. Right now, in regards to the geographic barriers, we are the people who are prohibiting Canadians from one province from gaining meaningful employment in another, as per that Constitution. I think that argument is the most powerful tool in your hands. Thank you.
Ms. Barrados: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of getting into a big argument here, I have been advised that technically, I cannot set a national area of selection or a provincial selection area. That would be in violation of the Charter. However, the legislation does allow for the setting of other geographic regions. I understand fully what the senator is saying and that it is very hard to defend a policy that says that you have to live in Ottawa to get officer level jobs in this city, when not only are there many other qualified people in the country, but I have legislation telling me that I should be staffing a public service that is representative and diverse.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I wanted to pick up where Senator Downe left off, on the role of commissioners, but if that is his area of questioning I will leave that.
Senator Downe: It is.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I will follow the senator then after he is through.
Senator Downe: I have a couple of questions on the commissioners and then I have another point.
What exactly will these two or more part-time commissioners be doing for you?
Ms. Barrados: I see the part-time commissioners as playing a strategic role, more like a board of directors' role. I would expect them to be approving strategic direction and policies as we are shaping new policies under the new staffing agreements. They have specific obligations that relate to regulatory areas, inclusions and granting leave to take part in political activity. They would have to do those kinds of specific things, but otherwise it is a strategic role.
Senator Downe: You will be in charge of assigning responsibility and jobs to be done?
Ms. Barrados: As president of the organization, it will be my responsibility to bring that material to them. However, once they are in place, I do not have the authority to approve things entirely on my own. I do need the commission to approve those things. There will be a number of activities that I can undertake as the head of the organization, like any other deputy minister. Those do not have to go to the commission. There are a number of things that I call service activities that we provide currently that will be separated out. Those will not go to the commission. Any of those strategic directions for the delegation agreements, what kinds of thing we are delegating, how we define political activity in the process we put in place, our audit plans, are the kinds of things that should go to the commission. Any of the regulatory areas have to go to the commission.
Senator Downe: Other agencies and boards have had part-time commissioners in the past and the government has tended to appoint people from the regions and to have representation from various groups. However, over time, agencies like the CRTC found it was easier not to use part timers and just go with the full timers in Ottawa because of the distance, the local people were here, and they could be at the headquarters. Would it be your view that it should be centralized in Ottawa or is there a need for people to be appointed from across the country?
Ms. Barrados: In my view, they have to be diverse. I have to have diversity among those commissioners. They should not be just like me because then I will not get that range of input that I need.
I have spoken to Mary Gusella, who is Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, and she has part- time commissioners. She operates with a larger number, and we have talked about things like using teleconferencing. My current vision is I would expect the commissioners to be spending two to three days a month on commission business, so that it would be possible to travel from any point in the country if those meetings are set well enough in advance.
Senator Downe: How many commissioners would you be recommending?
Ms. Barrados: To start, two.
Senator Downe: The last point I am concerned about actually contains two elements. The deputy ministers now have increased responsibility for staffing, and it seems to me that that may rub against the non-partisan nature of the public service because the deputy heads are almost always at-pleasure appointments. They are there at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, the government of the day, and they can be removed the same way. Are you concerned they may be unduly influenced by the minister to hire people who are not qualified, and you will only audit them after the fact?
Ms. Barrados: The interesting thing about the legislation is that the authority to appoint is still with the Public Service Commission.
Senator Downe: However, only on the recommendation of the deputy minister?
Ms. Barrados: The legislation that the Public Service Commission operates under now says we should delegate. We hold those authorities. We are directed to delegate those authorities, which we will try to do, but then that gives me a number of levers. It allows for delegation agreements, so I can set conditions as part of those. I set the policy and policy framework for those delegations. I will have the ability to monitor what is going on. That is much more active and involved.
Currently, we are still actually doing a lot of the work on some of the appointments and there are discussions about where some of these things are going, but my intention is to delegate. In addition, I will have audit and investigative powers.
Senator Downe: I am concerned as well about your watchdog and audit function. You are auditing people upon whom you are dependent for your budget. Senator Oliver talked about how much money you have for auditors. If you are an intense watchdog in terms of Treasury Board and find them in violation, these are the people you have to go to to get your budget approved. Will that not influence how tough you are on the government of the day? I think it is unfortunate that the term is not longer so you would have more independence and in case you are interested in a second term, which you may not be, but I think the same principle applies, that you are somehow beholden to the government of the day for reappointment. Do you have any comments?
Ms. Barrados: The first one, in terms of the budget, that is a concern. I came from the office of the Auditor General and Ms. Sheila Fraser is in the same situation. She has to go to Treasury Board for her budget. She is concerned about that. There is some effort being made to look at alternative models of financing.
I share some of that concern, because clearly you are independent and you are asked to be very independent, you have no minister, except someone to transmit your reports, and you do not want things to compromise that independence. It is an issue, and I am watching closely to see what the auditor succeeds in accomplishing on that front.
As for a longer term, I have not really thought about it very much, but I can tell you that I am now in a position take a pension without a penalty. Even in the interim period, I told my staff that I was going to do the best I could in this job and I was not going to worry about what people would say and do, and that is the way I will approach it. I am not looking for another appointment after this one.
Senator Downe: It is not so much you are I am concerned about, it is the government 8 or 10 years out that exploits some of the weaknesses here and appoints 42 people from across the country, friends and cronies, to be part-time commissioners; appoints someone as president who hopes to be reappointed and is a lapdog. There are flaws in the bill.
Ms. Barrados: I have an agreement with the government that they will not appoint anyone without consulting me, and that process is ongoing.
Senator Oliver: Do you have a veto?
Ms. Barrados: I do not think so, no.
Senator Downe: Current governments cannot bind future governments. After the next election, you may not have that agreement.
Ms. Barrados: That is true. There is a commitment to a five-year review of that legislation. That will be an opportunity to raise a number of these issues. We are also keeping a list of things that we are finding, questions that should be reviewed in five years to make that a better piece of legislation.
The Chairman: Ms. Barrados, on the question of your autonomy from the cabinet, when Ms. Boudrias was at the table with Mr. Coderre, she took the trouble to say that the Public Service Commission is not an agency of Parliament, rather, it is an executive agency. I should have asked her, I suppose, to define more precisely what the distinction is, but I did not. I will ask you, what do you make of that distinction?
Ms. Barrados: That is a question I have been asking people and I have all kinds of briefing notes on the subject. My understanding is that we do not have the same kind of independence that the Auditor General has.
The Chairman: In what sense?
Ms. Barrados: There are two very clear things. First, I do transmit my reports via a minister; the Auditor General does not do that.
The Chairman: They cannot edit them on their way to Parliament, can they?
Ms. Barrados: They never have.
The Chairman: That is not the answer I was looking for. Do you mean to tell me a minister could actually revise your report on its way to being tabled in Parliament? Surely not.
Ms. Barrados: I give the report to the minister. I do not see it again. Ministers have never done that. The act says ``transmittal'' and that is what has occurred.
Under the new legislation, I can now report directly to Parliament. That new clause makes me more like an officer of Parliament.
The other major difference compared to the Auditor General is that I hold executive powers to staff. All staffing, hiring and promotions to other positions are under my authority.
The Chairman: Do you consider yourself an agent of the government in that respect?
Ms. Barrados: Technically, I consider the commission more of an executive agency, but functioning more like a parliamentary agency as a result of the direct link to Parliament and this approval process, for example. That is quite unusual in the government.
The Chairman: Is there any other way? The budgetary process is the same as for the Auditor General. Most of us agree that that ought to be changed. Parliament ought to be much more involved in that process. Is there any other aspect of your duties in which you are beholden to the government? Would they have to ask Parliament to approve your dismissal?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, they would.
The Chairman: They would, but not your transfer, or, as happened so often in the past, they decided or you decided that it would be a good idea to have you appointed deputy minister of amateur sport or something.
Ms. Barrados: If I left voluntarily, that would be fine. I could do that. However, they could not remove me from office without coming back to Parliament. It really concerns the holding of these executive functions. There was some argument, when the bill was being discussed, that the Public Service Commission should have only audit and oversight functions. If that were the case, it would be exactly like the Auditor General.
The fact that we are holding all of those executive functions means that I must work closely with my colleagues in government, otherwise the system would not work.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The role of the part-time commissioners, even though they are called ``part-time,'' is quite significant. Their responsibilities are quite large, based on page 4 of your presentation. They renew and approve strategic directions and policies, they approve regulations with you, including orders and requests for political leave, et cetera.
It seems that if the government were displeased with where you wanted to take the commission, they could name three or four sympathetic part-time commissioners as Order in Council appointments and just paralyse you; is that correct?
Ms. Barrados: Mr. Chairman, that is theoretically possible.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: More than theoretically, I am afraid. We must appreciate what handicaps you would be working under and how a vindictive government could, for whatever reason, decide that while they may not be able to remove the commissioner, they can certainly paralyse him or her by naming fellow part-time commissioners to neutralize him or her. Maybe your independence is more theoretical than actual.
Ms. Barrados: When I took this role on, I obtained an agreement from the current government — and I appreciate that governments and players change — that it would be better for me to go through the nomination process first and be involved in the selection of the part-time commissioners. This government agreed to do that.
I feel that given where I am in my career, and how strongly I believe in some of these things, that if I ever felt that I was being compromised in that fashion, I would be calling the chairs of the parliamentary committees to come and speak to you.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I would go further than that and ask for a full hearing before committees of both Houses, who have put their confidence in you and expect that that confidence will be appreciated to the point that if there is a problem, you would come back to Parliament and outline it.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, I would.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Something new is being tried here. There will be some bumps on the road. I am sure that this committee and our equivalent committee on the other side will want to ensure that this works properly. I wish you well.
Senator Chaput: I wish to return to your functions in regard to audits. You spoke about areas of risk. How would you define those areas of risk? Are they only financial risks? Will you be adding new areas of risk and what could they be?
You define the risks. I believe you will audit and then monitor. Once you have audited and monitored and the changes are not what you would like them to be, what steps are you allowed to take?
Ms. Barrados: Even though staffing is thought of as completely separate from financial audits and financial work, and there will not be financial audits, staffing has enormous financial implications. I had some of my people do some of the calculations. If you hire people at the entry level and they stay their entire career in the DES group, for example, that is an investment of over $2 million per person on the part of the government. These are significant activities.
We define risk against those staffing values and directives in the preamble of the legislation for how we expect staffing to take place: Fair, transparent, equitable, representative, and the use of both official languages. These are the kinds of directives that exist. We would be looking to determine areas where there is a sense that these things are not being adhered to.
How do we do that? We get complaints. I get letters. If I get some letters complaining, and we review those letters, I send some of my people to take a look. If there is something that looks wrong, the auditors will go in.
We also see patterns in some of the numbers and how appointments are made. When that looks not right, that is, the risk has gone up, we send in the auditors.
The next question is what do we do with these audits and investigations and our concerns?
I have two kinds of obligations in the legislation in terms of where I go and to whom I report. I do have an obligation to the deputy ministers to whom I have delegated, so my first call is to the deputy minister to explain the problem.
As part of the delegation agreements and my feedback, my next call is on the clerk, to say I have a particular problem and this is the nature of it. If I have a very serious problem, I expect the clerk to take action. If it is not that serious a problem, it should be dealt with in the appraisal of the deputy minister.
I also can go public, which is my next step. Then my approach is very much like the Auditor General. I make a report to Parliament, and then I rely on Parliament and public persuasion to correct the actions.
I have a final power that is very strong, that the Auditor General does not have. I can remove the delegation authorities.
The Chairman: Take them back?
Ms. Barrados: Yes. In the case of the Privacy Commissioner, for example, the delegation authorities were removed and they have not yet been returned.
Senator Day: I wonder if you could explain briefly the relationship you expect to have, if any, with the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency?
Ms. Barrados: Currently, I think my relationship with that agency has to be quite close. That is because they are the ones who are managing all the other policy areas. They are managing the implementation of the legislation — a number of areas that affect me.
They also are the ones who set direction for the government. My intention in this transition period is to in fact work closely with them to try to establish the new regime. I constantly remind them of where I am independent, and I will do some things the way I think is correct and not necessarily the way the collectivity feels we should go. I do not see myself being a member of the committee of senior officials. I do not see myself being a member of that deputy minister community — the deputy breakfasts, for example.
Senator Day: Your predecessors had been doing that, I understand.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, but they came from the deputy minister community and I did not. I will work closely with them in implementing the new regime.
Senator Day: In terms of the standards against which your audits will be conducted, is that something you will develop within the Public Service Commission, or will you be receiving direction and assistance on that from the agency?
Ms. Barrados: No, that will be within the Public Service Commission and I would guard that. We also set the policies.
There are areas where we will have to work with the agency, because some of the difficulties we have seen relate to how staffing and classification are combined. You appoint someone and then you reclassify his or her position. Now classification is with the agency, and you really have to look at those things together. We will have discussions about that and isolate the problems.
Senator Day: When you conduct your audits and your oversight, would you be looking at things like potential problems with abuse of term appointments versus permanent hiring? Would you be looking at potential bureaucratic patronage, and would you be looking at situations where students apply for summer jobs but are put on the front line? One of our other Senate committees cautioned that might have been happening with respect to one of the agencies, which is Customs. My final question in that regard is are there any government agencies, such as Customs, where you do not have authority to go in and do these things?
Ms. Barrados: We will look at things like term hiring, yes. I am very concerned about the use of term hiring — not that it is wrong. There is a good reason to have term hiring. However, we may have a situation where we will run a big recruitment program for post-secondary graduates. We will qualify something like 20,000. We will have 500 jobs. We have gone through this process; we have tested them and screened them and we give out a small number of jobs. In the meantime, there are many hundreds more who enter the public service through that term appointment process, that indeterminate route. There you skip around the process and the values. I have a concern about that, and it is the kind of thing we are looking at.
Bureaucratic patronage — yes, definitely. My predecessor started an initiative to look at that. We have just held a round table on it because the definition is a little tricky. We are getting all kinds of advice on how to move forward on that, but we will be talking about that. That is more of an issue in the public service today than political patronage.
I am not sure about the issue of the students on the front line — and it relates to your next question — because my mandate is for what is commonly called the ``core'' public service. CCRA is not part of it; the border agency is now again a part. I still have a role with CCRA, but it is not the same kind of role, in that they do not hold staffing authorities delegated to them from the Public Service Commission.
Senator Day: Even though you are not involved in staffing, do you still have the audit authority with respect to these non-core government agencies?
Ms. Barrados: Generally, no. There is a section in CCRA's legislation to the effect that the Public Service Commission can opine on whether there is respect for the values. That work has not been done, so I do not know how far we can go. We have no role, for example, with something like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Canada Parks Agency.
Senator Day: We may want you to advise us on whether this is a good idea, that you do not have any oversight there, and whether you are convinced there is adequate oversight of these agencies in the future. I suppose, going further out from the core, there are the Crowns and Crown corporations.
My final question does not relate to what you will be doing, but to what you were doing and your time with the Auditor General.
Was there ever a time when you were doing these value-for-money audits that you were concerned that you were getting to close to policy and questioning policy? How do you guard against that and how did you guard against that — or did it ever occur to you?
Ms. Barrados: We debated that all the time.
Senator Day: I thought you might.
Ms. Barrados: In some areas, we were quite comfortable, because you have administrative policies and you have financial policies. At the Auditor General's office, we had no problems saying that we had a role in auditing those policies. I think that was pretty clear, and certainly you would expect the Auditor General to be auditing financial policies. Other policies, such as social programs — a good area — were more difficult. We always drew the line at doing an assessment of the policy itself, but we knew when we were doing our audits on the implementation of a policy that a comment on how well it was implemented of course reflected back on the policy itself. We always worked very hard to stay on the side of discussing the implementation and leave it to members of Parliament and others to talk about the consequences of that for the policy.
Senator Oliver: I am very impressed with the responses you have been giving to the questions put by the various senators. I feel that the Public Service Commission will be in very good hands, and I look forward to watching and following many of the decisions you will be taking in this area.
We met in my office about a month ago, and one of the things we discussed that I would like you to elaborate on a little is the special operating agency that was very much like a recruitment agency. What type of recruitment will you be doing and will you appoint someone to be in charge of that? Could you outline for us just how it will be done?
Ms. Barrados: Five months ago, the Public Service Commission was involved in a lot of activities that were not part of that core mandate, like language training, like Training Development Canada and some of the development programs.
Those have all been transferred out. We have transferred one third of the Public Service Commission activities to a more logical home.
Senator Oliver: Minister Coderre has responsibility for language training.
Ms. Barrados: That is right. They have the new school.
This still leaves us a number of things that are more in that service realm, such as the Government of Canada Web site that lists all the jobs, the process for receiving and screening applications, and ensuring that all the requirements are met in the things we are doing in language testing and the assessment of executives. We are still doing a whole gamut of things in the Public Service Commission, and I have asked whether there is another logical home for them. There is not, and there is a very important role for the government in providing a single Web site, a single place where jobs can be posted.
The approach that I have taken is to try to distinguish very clearly what I am calling ``oversight'' activities — audit and monitoring — from what I am calling the ``service'' activities. I am planning to put those all together in one section of the organization. We will do this in consultation, obviously, with other people in the government, but we will turn them into a true recruitment agency. Currently, we have many applicants and a lot of problems with volumes, except in some particular areas. We know from looking at the demographics that in another five to ten years, there will be such a turnover in government that there will have to be a different kind of recruitment. I would like this group to have the capacity to do that.
Will I be appointing someone to head this? Yes, I am in the process of doing that.
The Chairman: There being no further questions, Dr. Barrados, you are excused. Thank you very much for replying so candidly and thoroughly to all the questions and comments from honourable senators.
Senator Day: It is a shame we did not get Mr. Arseneault on the record, with a fine Acadian name like that.
Ms. Barrados: I had Mr. Arseneault here to answer any technical questions on the legislation. I thought it would be inappropriate, at my nomination hearing, to have him answer questions on my behalf.
The Chairman: Colleagues, the Chair will entertain a motion to the effect that this committee report to the Senate recommending that the appointment of Dr. Barrados as president of the Public Service Commission be approved.
Senator Day: I so move.
The Chairman: Colleagues, you have heard the motion. Is there any discussion on that matter?
There being none, are you ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chairman: Will all those in favour of the motion please
say Yea?
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chairman: Contrary minded?
The motion is carried unanimously.
The committee adjourned.