Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of September 26, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill S-201, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and geographic criteria in appointment processes), met this day at 9:32 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome. Today, the committee will begin its study of Bill S-201, which proposes to do two things: first, it would disallow the use of geographic criteria to determine a selection in the hiring processes; and second, it would ensure that appointments to and within the public service are free from bureaucratic patronage.
Our first witness today is Senator Ringuette, who is the sponsor of the bill and who represents the province of New Brunswick in the Senate. She has been interested in this issue for some time and has provided senators with a considerable amount of leadership on the issue. Certainly, the committee will benefit from her ideas and explanations in respect of the bill. Senator Ringuette is accompanied today by Mr. David Michaud, Legislative Assistant. Senator Ringuette, please proceed.
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette, sponsor of the bill: I thank the committee for acting so expeditiously on Bill S-201.
I have been working on this issue for some time. Since 1993, I have pressed for changes so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast can have some kind of equity and fairness in the public service hiring processes. Only in recent years has there been slight progress, partly due to a great deal of pressure not only from parliamentarians but also from the public on the issue of being barred from putting forth their applications for public service.
Bill S-201 has a dual objective: first, the bill does away with the practice of using geographic criteria to determine an area of selection for the purpose of eligibility in the appointment processes; and second, the bill ensures that both internal and external public service appointments are free of bureaucratic favouritism.
Currently, the Public Service Commission of Canada can set geographic criteria for eligibility to compete for positions. For example, in the National Capital Region, which includes portions of Ontario and Quebec, the population is almost one million. Those residents have almost exclusive access to 60 per cent of all federal public service jobs, and that number excludes positions with agencies and Crown corporations.
I want to circulate to members of the committee the statistics gathered last Friday on the public service website, jobs.gc.ca., showing which openings specify geographic criteria and which ones do not. In the category of professional and administrative positions, of the 74 jobs listed, 41 of them stated geographic criteria, which is 55.5 per cent. Two executive positions were listed and neither one specified geographic criteria. In the category of computer-related, technical and scientific positions, 66 jobs were advertised and 28 of them had geographic criteria, which is 42.4 per cent. In the clerical and secretarial category, 16 positions were advertised and 15 of them had geographic criteria, which is 97 per cent. In the category of labour and trade, 35 jobs were advertised and all 35 specified geographic restrictions to hiring. In total, last Friday 193 jobs were posted on the website for public service jobs and 119 of them specified geographic criteria, which is 61.6 per cent.
Along the same lines and in the spirit of equity and justice, it is inconceivable that 0.3 per cent of Canadians living in the National Capital Region do not have access to 40 per cent of the jobs. The purpose of Bill S-201 is not to eliminate or reduce job access to people living in the NCR but rather to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they live, have access to all federal jobs, no matter the locations. Such principles are stated under Mobility Rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I will highlight a few facts from the Public Service Commission Annual Report 2004-2005. It states that about 10 per cent of public servants were recruited from outside the public service. It also states that:
Managers have met minimum policy requirements to recruit nationally for all senior-level jobs, but otherwise they have opted for provisions to limit competitions by geographic area. This option is used to manage large numbers of candidates. As a result, 19 per cent of all external advertised jobs, and 28 per cent in the National Capital Region, used a national area of selection.
Those statistics can be found on page eight of chapter one of the report. These statistics do not take into consideration other covert tactics used by managers to undermine the equality and impartiality of the hiring process by hiring casual or temporary employees without competition through employment agencies. That practice is most evident in the Public Service Commission Annual Report 2004-2005.
About two years ago, the President of the Treasury Board committed $40 million before this committee to upgrade the computerized system so that the technology would be available to eliminate those geographic barriers. However, we are still at the stage of policy and policy is not what Canadians expect in regards to fairness. We can cite many examples.
Only 19 per cent of the jobs in all regions — and since April 1, 2006, 60 per cent of the jobs open to the public in the national capital region — are filled in accordance with the Public Service Commission national hiring policy. It is evident from the commission's report that policy alone will not deal with this issue, therefore, necessitating this bill.
Although jobs are advertised to the public, 40 per cent of the federal jobs across the country still have geographic barriers for all Canadians, including those living in the capital region. Opening up the 60 per cent of federal jobs advertised publicly for Ottawa is not opening the access to 100 per cent of the federal jobs to all Canadians. The priority of this bill is to eliminate these geographic barriers.
The second aspect of the bill deals with bureaucratic patronage. It is evident from two sources that legislation is needed to change this situation.
Two years ago, the Auditor General reported to the House of Commons and to the Senate that there was no political patronage in the system of hiring and staffing, because it was in the legislation. However, in 2003, the Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, audited the hiring process for student jobs and found that 25 per cent of students employed for summer jobs within the public service were hired with bureaucratic patronage. We are looking at students alone.
A study, Study of Personal Favouritism in Staffing and Recruitment within the Federal Public Service, was done by the Public Service Commission. The data, on page 11, states that 45 per cent of surveyed respondents believe that favouritism occurs some of the time in their work unit, and 28 per cent believe it occurs often. The study found that 73 per cent of the public servants say there is bureaucratic patronage in the system. Again, policy, does not deal with this issue. We need legislation.
I would like to close my remarks by saying that I have received many emails from people across the country with regard to this bill. They all state that there is a desperate need. One individual said that his superior had three sons who worked every summer in their unit and two of the three sons remained on part-time employment during their university years. In his department, many other supervisors hired family. It is frustrating and unfair.
I hope I have your support for this legislation to eliminate this unfairness for all Canadians.
Senator Stratton: What is the source of this data sheet you gave us?
Senator Ringuette: It is from the jobs.gc.ca website.
Senator Stratton: You have gone through the website and extracted this list?
Senator Ringuette: It is correct as of last Friday.
Senator Stratton: That helps, thank you.
I understand that you have had experience with bureaucracy: you used to work for Canada post?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I did.
Senator Stratton: Did you become aware of bureaucratic patronage from your own experience in the post office?
Senator Ringuette: I would say no because most of the time I was outside the office doing negotiations with postal administration. However, the evidence gathered by the commission in their polling of the public service employees reveals that 73 per cent or 75 per cent say there is bureaucratic patronage in their work unit.
Senator Stratton: I was trying to relate the data back to what you used to do in the post office, that three out of four people across the bureaucracy, including the ranks of the post office, feel that way. I thought that perhaps, with your experience in working for the post office, at least one or two people might have talked to you about bureaucratic or political patronage.
Senator Ringuette: The polling by the commission did not include agencies or Crown corporations. It would be interesting to see, from a scientific polling situation, what is happening at those agencies and Crown corporations for the benefit of providing that type of information. It is important for all employees, whether they are in the public or private sector, that bureaucratic patronage is not part of the system, just as we are currently dealing with the whistle- blower legislation. It is important to put the proper system in place. Therein lies the purpose of this bill: namely, it is clear from the data that was reported by the commission that policy alone does not deal with patronage.
I will give you another example. There is a policy within the Public Service Commission that each department must submit a human resource plan. Only 23 per cent of the departments supply that plan. That means that over 75 per cent of the departments do not have a human resource plan. If they do not have a plan, then they are always in an emergency crisis to fill needed public servant positions. Again, the problem is because it is only a policy and not legislation. There is no real measure of commitment to deal with human resource planning.
Yesterday the federal government announced that they were reducing public service human resource programs by $83 million. I do not know which specific programs right now but that is also a concern. For decades, the public service did not pay a lot of attention to the human resource factor in their efficiency of operation. There are a lot of concerns. I wish that at least we could address the two that I am putting forth.
Senator Stratton: I will go back one last time to the post office. How many years were you with the post office?
Senator Ringuette: Five years.
Senator Stratton: Are you saying that you never experienced, or had a conversation with anyone in the post office about, bureaucratic patronage?
Senator Ringuette: I never experienced bureaucratic patronage.
Senator Stratton: I find that remarkable.
Senator Ringuette: However, if you want to amend this bill to include Crown corporations and agencies, I would be favourable to that.
Senator Stratton: This is your bill. I am surprised if you worked five years for the post office that you never once experienced a conversation with someone complaining about favouritism and the bureaucracy; yet you clearly indicate to us that on the other side of the bureaucracies, it is full of it. Why was it not the case there?
Senator Ringuette: I want to clarify something. The government website, jobs.gc.ca, does not include Crown corporations or agencies.
Senator Stratton: I appreciate that.
Senator Ringuette: Last spring, before reissuing this bill in front of the Senate, I went to some Crown corporation and agency job sites and did not find overwhelming evidence that the agencies and the Crown corporations put geographic barriers in their hiring process.
Senator Stratton: In Bill S-201, clause 1 allows the Public Service Commission to make regulations with regard to public patronage. When you think about that, here you have the bureaucrats making decisions about bureaucratic patronage; I think you are putting the fox into the henhouse, as it were. Would it not be better to legislate it? Otherwise, you let the unelected bureaucrats define ``bureaucratic patronage.'' I find it remarkable that you would allow them to do that and not take it away from them. To me, it is fundamental to the issue to do that.
Bill C-2, which we are wrestling with in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, has taken on the priority appointment process, which currently exists only in the public service because it allows ex- ministerial staffers to jump the queue in the public service. Is that process not the greatest source of bureaucratic patronage in itself?
How does this bill deal with that kind of thing? Bill C-2 does; your bill does not seem to. That issue is a serious one. I think it is a source of discontent within the public service that staffers in ministerial offices can jump the queue and go into the bureaucracy.
Senator Ringuette: I do not have any statistics or polling with the public employees that indicate that the removal of that provision is a source of contention. However, with the bill that you have in front of you, there is a report; and I thank the commission for doing that polling.
We are all parliamentarians and we hear all kinds of spin coming from all kinds of directions. However, in this situation, we have a specific poll done by the commission that testifies and certifies that there is bureaucratic patronage in the system.
Senator Eggleton: I agree with the principles that are incorporated in your bill. I will reserve judgment on whether we require legislation, as opposed to policy, until I hear from the officials of the Public Service Commission. However, I have heard your view that it should be legislation.
Having said that, I wish to look at the practical realities of implementing this legislation. I am always concerned about processes, whether in legislation or in policy, that try to solve a problem by killing a fly with a sledgehammer. I want to see how this legislation might work on a practical level.
I support the geographic criteria. However, in terms of practicality, are you saying that everybody should have the right to apply for all positions, whether the positions are clerical, general labour or executive, wherever they are in Canada?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: How does that work on the practical level in terms of people applying for a labour or a clerical position in one part of the country when the job is in Ottawa, or whatever? Will they pay to get themselves to that job or would they be funded by the federal government to transfer to the city where the job is located?
Senator Ringuette: In the practical sense, if the job opening is in Alberta in the private sector and a person qualifies, and is told by the private sector employer that their skills are requested and they have the position, people will move to that region for the job.
Senator Eggleton: At their own expense?
Senator Ringuette: That is what happens in the private workplace. I do not see why the federal government would pay for the move, whether the job is a high-ranking one or a clerical one. There should not be any discrimination because someone has a Ph.D. or a high school degree and is a competent clerical worker. The government should not have different standards.
From my knowledge, the private sector currently does not pay people to move. Some do, but it is not the general practice in the private sector.
Senator Eggleton: My understanding is that the private sector would do that for an executive level position, but not a clerical position. Are you suggesting the same kind of situation would exist here? If so, how do you address the matter of discrimination? Clerical people are important, too.
Senator Ringuette: That is right.
Senator Eggleton: If someone in Vancouver wants to apply for a clerical position at Veterans Affairs Canada in Charlottetown, that move is expensive. This is all theoretical; it may not actually happen, but I want to understand generally how you see these situations unfolding. If someone applies for assistant deputy minister, maybe he or she would be moved at the government's expense.
Senator Ringuette: It is funny how the system works, and how unfair the system is. If you hire a high-ranking official, you are saying that the federal government would pay to move that person to Ottawa, if the job is in Ottawa. That person would probably have a salary range between $100,000 and $130,000 per year, and the taxpayer would fund their move. However, the taxpayer would not fund the move for a clerical position. Is that not the peak of unfairness?
Also, Revenue Canada has a provision for people who incur expenses to move from one location to another for a job opportunity. The expense of that move is deductible from revenue; it is an expense for that year.
Senator Eggleton: As I understand it, a lot of people come into public service in temporary positions.
Senator Ringuette: Unfortunately, yes.
Senator Eggleton: They may or may not ultimately acquire permanent jobs. Do you see moving someone halfway across the country for a temporary position? Do you know if the government will foot the bill? That is a heavy expense.
You spoke about advertising, but what about internal posting of jobs? How would this work for internal posting? Would it be the same as external advertising?
Senator Ringuette: This bill does not deal with internal posting, because I feel internal posting is a matter of collective negotiation between the public service unions and Treasury Board.
Senator Eggleton: Is that not how a lot of temporary people move into jobs?
Senator Ringuette: Temporary people move into jobs in many ways. One way that temporary people attain jobs is through hiring agencies. The hiring agencies receive a commission on the salary of that person. The salary does not go entirely to that employee. This is an unfortunate way to manage human resources. May I also say that so far I have not seen, on the jobs.gc.ca website, advertised positions for part-time or non-full-time employment. Those types of jobs seem to be filled through other means.
Senator Eggleton: The second principle deals with the issue of patronage or favouritism. Again, I support the principle that patronage be curtailed, wherever necessary. I am concerned about, let us say, a scenario where a manager in a department happens to know someone who could fill the job well. That manager, of course, is familiar with the requirements of the job and may be familiar with an individual who can fill it. It is possible to look at the situation in two ways. One way is to say that it is good and helpful that the manager knows someone who can fill the job. The other way of looking at the situation is to say that the manager favours a certain person and that is not fair.
How do you make the distinction between hiring to the benefit of the public service when a manager knows someone who can fill the job — albeit the employee would still have to go through a process — and favouritism? Would that manager be afraid to nominate anyone because the loser of the job competition might say that the successful applicant got the job because the applicant knew manager X? This situation is complicated, but those realities exist. If a legislative framework is in place, will people be afraid to nominate someone for a job for fear of this kind of perception or accusation?
Senator Ringuette: Senator, there does not seem to be statistical evidence that managers fear that kind of approach, since over 75 per cent of the public servants who were polled indicate that there is favouritism in the workplace. The logic would indicate that those managers do not have such fear.
Senator Eggleton: However, you could put it in legislation.
Senator Ringuette: One thing that governments, for the last two decades, have missed is that we have gone through a cycle of natural attrition, and there did not seem to be any planning. The private sector, even small- and medium-sized businesses, plan the human resources they will need. When you plan, you can foresee and you can say in three or four months' time I will need a manager in this unit. If you have planning, then you can do proper public recruiting.
There is a vicious cycle right now in regards to human resources and planning, and one of the consequences is geographic barriers. I do not think that our federal government, or any entity, can, in the year 2006, work without a plan. Bear in mind that the federal government is a service industry. Basically, we do not have product output; we have service output. To provide service output, you are dealing with human resources to provide these services. How can we tolerate a situation where our departments have no human resource planning?
I must also acknowledge the good work that Ms. Barrados has been doing at the Public Service Commission in the last few years. She acknowledges these problems. However, we are still dealing with policies. People have been disgusted for decades with political patronage in the system. Now we face the situation of bureaucratic patronage. The only way to deal with it is with legislation and not policy, because policy is vague and can be detoured in many ways, whereas legislation cannot be.
Senator Rompkey: Thank you very much. To speak to Senator Eggleton's question of whether they will move, I think the answer is yes. The population of Fort McMurray, Alberta, is about 80,000 now, and I would say one third of that population is from Newfoundland. People are getting there any way they can. They will pile into a pick-up truck or a van. If they can afford the airfare, they go by air. If they are unemployed, I suppose they could get help from Human Resources Canada, which has a mobility program. If their fish plant closes down, as it did in Harbour Breton, they will get there any way they can. People will move if they can find a job.
I wanted to make the contrast with other branches of what could be described broadly as the public service, such as the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. I do not know what research you have done, but is there any geographic barrier in the armed forces or in the RCMP? Corporal Nolin from Newfoundland died in Afghanistan a little while ago, and I know of no geographic barrier preventing him from entering the armed forces. However, if he had applied for a trade position, the total number of jobs advertised was 35 and the jobs with geographical restrictions was 35; if he had applied for a secretarial or a clerical position, the total number of jobs advertised was 16 and the jobs with geographical restrictions were 15.
My experience is that in the armed forces there is no such geographical barrier. The largest group in the navy, oddly enough, is from Saskatchewan. It used to be, anyway; I do not know if it still is. The second largest group in the navy is from my province. A large number in the ground forces personnel is from my province, as well. One of them made it as far as Chief of the Defence Staff. If there had been a geographic restriction, perhaps he would not be where he is today.
The same thing is true of the RCMP. Senator Murray might agree that the number from Cape Breton and throughout the Atlantic region is high. At least, that has been my experience. I make the contrast between other branches of what could be described broadly as the public service. Can you respond to that, as to whether you have done any research, whether there is any comparison and whether we should deal with that particular issue of contrast.
While I agree with the legislation, I was a little disconcerted when I saw bureaucratic patronage put into legislation. I do not know what the definition would be, and the second question would be the fact that it is in legislation. You said that there is precedence for this, and it is needed in law to make it work as it would not work otherwise, and that the same method was followed in some other area.
Those three points come to my mind immediately. Please comment on those points.
Senator Ringuette: I have not looked into the recruitment process of the defence department. However, I can say that civilian staff of the defence department, whether at the headquarters or on our different military bases, do have geographic restrictions. I recall a conversation that I had with a gentleman from Moncton, New Brunswick. A position opened up in Gagetown, but because of the geographic limitation he could not apply, although he was qualified and he was still within the Province of New Brunswick. The civilian population for the defence department is subject to geographic restrictions.
You put forth the situation of RCMP recruiting. That situation is interesting because within the job dispatching, RCMP officers are mobile across the country. No geographic barriers restrict their work to within 50 kilometres of their principal residence. That situation is a contrast to what we see in the public service.
In regard to the definition of bureaucratic patronage, I would like Mr. Michaud to address this issue. He has researched this legislation and the definition aspect of bureaucratic patronage, for.
David Michaud, Legal Advisor to Senator Ringuette: My understanding is that the commission has started to ponder a possible definition and has come up with a certain explanation to circumscribe the term. The commission has come up with the explanation that bureaucratic patronage could be defined as improper conduct or abuse of authority, but more specifically defined by managers in the recruitment and staffing process.
Senator Rompkey: Thank you. What does ``improper conduct'' mean? That is a broad term.
Mr. Michaud: It is. Improper conduct or abuse of authority is defined in sections 66 and 67 of the Public Service Employment Act.
Senator Rompkey: Is abuse of authority defined?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, it is.
Senator Rompkey: How is it defined?
Mr. Michaud: It is in sections 66 and 67. The first concept, the abuse of authority here, improper conduct or abuse of authority is actually defined as an ``appointment that 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 appointed or proposed for appointment'' by the commission.
Senator Rompkey: Is merit the fundamental concept here?
Mr. Michaud: Yes.
Senator Rompkey: I do not want to pursue this questioning now, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that that is a worthy area to pursue further. Perhaps we should not take too much time right now to deal with it.
The Chairman: Senator Rompkey, we also have as our next witnesses people from the Public Service Commission, who probably know the definitions clearly, if you want to hold your fire on that issue until they appear.
Did you have any other line of questioning?
Senator Rompkey: No.
Senator Mitchell: Are you aware of any current circumstances under which geographic descriptions are lifted if, for example, the Public Service Commission cannot fill a position within the geographic restriction that they have imposed in the first place? Do you have examples where they change that rule? Is that process intuitive or is there some rigorous structure by which that is done? Do they already break or change that rule.
Senator Ringuette: That information is within the commission itself. Ms. Barrados would be more able to answer that question. I think it would be difficult to recruit, especially in the scientific field. It is probable, but I do not have specific data for that.
Senator Mitchell: Are you aware of any differences between part-time or summer employee hiring between that process and the process of permanent positions?
Senator Ringuette: There are many programs to recruit summer students. However, there are programs that are completely useless for many departments. Ms. Barrados can also answer that for you. She and her staff go to great lengths so that managers use the current recruiting process for students.
It is also a concern that part-timers or term employees are used and that the proper staffing process is not used. A large pool of people go through that process on a yearly basis, and sometimes managers use that method to help someone they know. People are hired on a casual or term basis until they learn the jobs, and once they are competent in the job, then a job will open. It is a way of circumventing the process and allowing bureaucratic patronage.
One should also question why managers use employment agencies while for many decades employment has been the mandate of the commission as the recruiting and staffing arm of the federal government.
Senator Murray: I am trying to make up my mind about this bill. At one point I thought that doing away with geographical criteria seems acceptable, and, on the face of it, something that ought to be done. It could be done by legislation more than adequately.
I am less enthusiastic about trying to eliminate ``bureaucratic patronage'' by legislation because the term is so subjective. Trying to judge ``bureaucratic patronage'' is subjective and hazardous.
However, I have difficulty on both scores, even with the so-called geographical area of selection.
I am concerned about what we may do to the management of departments of the public service. Say I was a manager somewhere and I said to you: ``A job is opening up and I think you would be the ideal person for that job. Now, you have to take your chances. There will be a competition, but I strongly urge you to apply because I think you would be ideal for that important job.''
Would that be an abuse of my position, especially if I turn out to be one of the people on the selection committee? Is it wrong for me, as a manager, to identify someone that I think would be the ideal person for an important and sensitive job?
With respect to geography, it will always happen — I hope it happens — that a manager about to fill an important or sensitive job — let us say with the fisheries department on the Acadian peninsula, with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, or with a national park — will surely look for somebody who has some background, familiarity and experience in that particular area. On paper, a half-dozen candidates may have all the educational qualifications, the public service experience and all the rest of it. The manager does not want the successful candidate in sensitive or important jobs or any jobs to have too steep a learning curve. To be a fisheries officer on the Acadian peninsula is not the same as being a fisheries officer in Prince Rupert. To make a judgment about what is needed by way of business assistance or industrial incentives, or even federal and provincial cooperation and regional development is not the same in the Atlantic Provinces as it might be in northern Ontario or somewhere in Quebec. Likewise, it is easy to say that a national park is a national park, but you and I know that there are considerable differences there.
I am concerned about making it impossible for managers, who, by taking into account background and familiarity with the local situation, will open themselves to the accusation that they are really implementing a policy of geographical favouritism and bureaucratic patronage.
By the way, does this bill apply to agencies such Parks Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which, as you know have been put at arm's length by legislation supposedly?
Senator Ringuette: They are not within the public service. I look at the jobs.gc.ca site often, and I have not seen agency jobs advertised in there.
Senator Murray: Comment, if you will, on that.
Senator Ringuette: I am sympathetic to what you say about local specificity and differences. However, another side to this issue is bringing those differences to the national capital. The knowledge of the regions in the different departments would enhance the quality of programs and the quality of assessment of programs for the regions.
I see no problem with your example of a manager who says to someone that a job will open and that individual would be an excellent candidate, as long as that manager is not in a conflict situation, such as being part of the hiring group for that position. Then, the manager pays only lip service to the process and the fairness of the process because, out of 32 million Canadians, maybe a few other Canadians out there have the same qualification or more qualifications to do the job.
Senator Murray: Who knows better than the manager?
Senator Ringuette: Then we have a serious problem because only 23 per cent of the managers currently supply a human resource plan. That is a deficiency with respect to the managers knowing their human resources needs. I know that Ms. Barrados and the commission have put a lot of energy into stressing the importance of human resource management in our system, not only because of the geographic barrier system but also because of the efficiency of work units.
As I said earlier, this is a vicious cycle. I think it is high time that we pay serious consideration to that fact. I believe the bill alerts managers to the fact that thus far, they have done what they wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted; however, equity is needed. If they do not want to complete it in a planned way, we will do so in a legislative way.
I am aware that Ms. Barrados plans to ask you to amend this bill. The amendment that will be proposed by the commission completely destroys the object and principle of this bill; namely, that the commission reserves the ability to impose geographic barriers.
Senator Murray: We will hear from her.
Senator Ringuette: I will question her then.
Senator Murray: You may question her as well as comment when we get to that point.
The Chairman: That concludes the discussion with respect to this bill from the point of view of the sponsor, Senator Ringuette. Our next witnesses are here, so we will allow Senator Ringuette to take a seat on the sidelines while we bring them in.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you. I trust your good judgment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Today, we continue our study of Bill S-201, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and geographic criteria in appointment processes).
[English]
The Chairman: I am pleased to welcome Ms. Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, an independent agency responsible for safeguarding the values of a professional public service that includes competence, non-partisanship and representativeness.
Ms. Barrados was confirmed as President of the Public Service Commission of Canada effective May 21, 2004. She had served as interim president since November 2003. From December 1993 to that date, she was assistant Auditor General, audit operations, at the office of the Auditor General of Canada. Ms. Barrados has a solid background in audit, evaluation and statistical analysis. She is also active in her community.
She is joined by Mr. Donald Lemaire, Vice-President, Staffing and Assessment Services Branch; and Mr. Gaston Arseneault, General Counsel at the commission.
Senator Murray: On a point of order, I gather we have an in-camera meeting following this meeting to discuss future business of the committee?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Murray: It would be helpful if you could indicate to us how long we have the officials from the Public Service Commission of Canada with us.
The Chairman: I think honourable senators will determine that by their questions. There are a number of points. Ms. Barrados has already been here, so she might be able to cover several points in her introductory remarks, therefore cutting down on the questions, but I hesitate to impose a time limit.
Senator Murray: At what time do you expect the in-camera portion to start?
The Chairman: Immediately following the witnesses.
Senator Murray: What time to you expect it to end?
The Chairman: I expect we will be out of here in an hour or so.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you for joining us this morning, Ms. Barrados. We look forward to hearing your opening remarks, following which we will have a question and answer session.
[English]
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that introduction and giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill S-201. I am sympathetic with the issues raised in the bill; however, I have concerns about its current formulation.
[Translation]
The Public Service Commission, the PSC, by virtue of its mandate, has a strong interest in this bill. We have been entrusted by Parliament to protect merit and non-partisanship in the management of human resources, independent of ministerial direction. We also provide staffing and assessment services to government departments. As part of the Public Service Modernization Act, the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) underwent significant changes in 2003. At that time, Parliament reaffirmed the PSC's authority for establishing an area of selection policy.
Bill S-201 proposes to define bureaucratic patronage and eliminate geographic criteria in appointment processes. The PSC has done work on bureaucratic patronage and on the related concepts of abuse of authority and personal favouritism. We released a study in October 2005 in which we put forward a working definition of personal favouritism. The new Public Service Employment Act establishes abuse of authority, including personal favouritism, as a ground for complaint to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. Bureaucratic patronage is a broad issue that goes beyond staffing. The concept is embedded in the Values and Ethics Code for public servants and covers fairness in all areas of discretion including training and development, classification and rewards and recognition. Senators may wish to consider hearing from other witnesses on this issue, whether the PSST, the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. My comments today relate primarily to the portion of the bill dealing with geographic criteria.
[English]
Geographic limits are a common element of area of selection and determine where applicants must reside or work to be eligible to participate in an appointment process and to be considered for job openings.
The Public Service Employment Act, PSEA, our legislation, provides the commission discretion in determining an appropriate area of selection. Setting limits on areas of selection has enabled the public service to attract a sufficient pool of qualified candidates, while ensuring a manageable number of applications and reasonable recruitment times. A national area of selection removes those geographic limits within Canada, and allows candidates from across the country to apply for a given job opportunity.
Bill S-201 removes all discretion in the use of geographic area of selection for selection processes such as external and internal staffing processes, permanent, part-time, long-term and short-term positions. These selection processes can include student employment unless students are specifically excluded from the act.
I support the objectives of Senator Ringuette's bill to enhance Canadians' access to public service jobs. In fact, for more than five years we have been doing exactly that by using our authority to make binding policy on departments — and our policies are binding given the nature of our legislation.
National area of selection has been used for external processes held for the levels of executive, executive one level below, and executive two levels below or equivalent. Most recently, we changed the area of selection policy so that as of April 1, 2006, departments must use a national area of selection for all officer level jobs open to the public within the National Capital Region. That means all Canadians are able to apply. We anticipate that this policy requirement will double the number of jobs in the National Capital Region to which Canadians from across the country can apply — an increase from 28 per cent to about 60 per cent.
Our ultimate goal is a national area of selection for all external advertised appointment processes for all positions across Canada. Depending on the results of an impact assessment, this policy could be in place as early as December 2007. To support this goal, the Public Service Commission developed the Public Service Resourcing System, PSRS, which is a computer system. It is a web-based tool for external staffing, designed to reduce the number of applicants that need to be screened manually by relying on electronic screening.
As you can see, we are taking a measured approach. This approach recognizes that the use of a national area of selection typically results in an increased number of applications and generally, as the number of applications increases, so, too, does the staffing time and associated costs. We need to ensure that the use of a national area of selection is implemented in a way that neither disrupts the service to the public, nor results in an unreasonable use of public funds.
Our phased-in approach allows us to measure the impact of our policy, identify problems, correct them and use the lessons learned as we move forward into the next phase of implementation. In short, it is a responsible approach to enhancing Canadians' access to public service jobs.
Our national area of selection policy does not apply to internal staffing processes or to the following external staffing processes: student employment, seasonal workers or appointments of six months or less. We do not believe that a national area of selection should extend to internal processes, as legislated in Bill S-201.
We agree with the intentions behind Bill S-201, but removing all discretion in applying any geographic restriction for both external and internal appointment processes through legislation would have serious potential effects on the staffing system.
In 2005-06 there were 44,662 external appointments, and 55,568 internal appointments. These were promotions, acting appointments, and lateral and downward movements within the public service. These staffing processes could be much more time consuming, slower and more costly in terms of the time it takes to staff a position, coping with unfilled positions and relocation costs. The inability of departments to fill positions in a timely and cost-effective manner could compromise service to Canadians. Such restrictions could result in an incentive for more non-advertised processes.
Requiring departments to establish a national area of selection for all internal appointment processes does not increase Canadians' access to the public service in any way, since internal appointment processes, by definition, involve employees already in the public service.
The bill removes all discretion to use geographic area of selection where it is in the best interest of the public service and ultimately Canadians. For example, take the external recruitment of term employees, especially those required for less than six months. Managers may need to hire staff for special projects or to backfill positions for employees that have taken leave such as vacation. Based on our experience to date, a process using a national area of selection would be completed after the need has passed. By removing discretion, delegated managers lose the capacity to effectively handle short-term staffing.
The additional time to conduct an appointment process using a national area of selection and the need to possibly relocate successful candidates jeopardizes the ability of a manager to have someone in place to ensure there is no disruption in service to Canadians.
The bill has significant implications in the area of travel and relocation expenses. The directives governing those expenses are the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Senators may wish to obtain estimates from the Treasury Board on potential costs.
While the objectives of increasing Canadians' access to public service jobs can be met without enacting the legislation, if Parliament wishes to do so, I propose an amendment to the bill, which has two components. The first puts the emphasis on national area of selection for jobs open to the public rather than internal processes.
The second allows the commission to make exceptions in instances where it is not in the best interest of the public service to use a national area of selection in an appointment process, such as the short-term hiring of term employees or the hiring of part-time workers. The amendment is attached for your consideration.
The issue of national area of selection was the subject of extensive debates in Parliament during the passage of the new Public Service Employment Act in 2003. Parliament reaffirmed the commission's discretion to establish geographic areas of selection and to be accountable for the use of that discretion. We are committed to implementing national area of selection for external recruitment at a pace that the system can absorb. We have already taken a number of measures toward meeting the objective of this bill of enhancing Canadians' access to jobs in the federal public service.
The Public Service Employment Act provides for a review in five years, providing a point for amendment. At that time, if sufficient progress has not been made, changes can be made to this area and the related system constraints that inhibited our progress.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Cowan: Thank you for appearing here today. I share the same concerns that Senator Murray expressed earlier about having general sympathy with the objectives of the bill but concerns about its practical implications and whether it would achieve what we hope to achieve.
I want to cover two areas. In your remarks you state that the issue of travel and relocation expenses is something we might appropriately obtain from the Treasury Board Secretariat. Can you give me a general overview of the current practice with respect to payment of expenses at two levels? The first is when a position is advertised, a pool of candidates or a short list is selected and the candidates are invited to come for an interview. Is there a uniform practice concerning whether the department or agency that is hiring would pay the expenses of people coming to an interview? Would that practice depend upon the level of the position advertised?
When a selection is made, in what instances would the employer pay relocation costs? Senator Eggleton asked questions along those lines. Certainly, in the private sector, that practice depends upon the level of employment. If a university, a law firm or a business wanted a national pool of candidates, they might pay some sort of relocation expense. They almost certainly would have to pay relocation expenses if they wanted to get a particular candidate whereas that might not be the practice at a lower level.
Second, what is the practice with respect to advertising positions? I assume that in some instances newspaper advertising is used, which is more expensive in light of the number of newspapers in which you advertise. If it is simply a question of posting it on some sort of job site — and perhaps it is the job site to which Senator Ringuette referred, jobs.gc.ca, then there is no additional cost if you expand the area of potential applicants.
Can you comment on those areas?
Ms. Barrados: As I said, travel and relocation is the responsibility of the Treasury Board. The current practice is different for external hiring and internal movements. On the external side, the practice is discretionary for expenses both to travel to an interview and for relocation. What usually occurs is full costs are paid for the more senior people but not so much for more junior people. There is a bit of discussion now on what the obligations are. I am seeking some clarification to ensure that we are compliant with what the Treasury Board expects.
Internal movement is covered under the union agreements employees have, as well as other employer-employee obligations. All those costs are paid. That expense would be significant.
Senator Cowan: Is that even for interviews?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
If you are within an organization and something is posted for a national area of selection and you are asked to go to another part of the country, then those expenses are paid.
The second part of your question concerns the practice of advertising. The commission requires, as a minimum, that jobs be posted. For external jobs, that posting tends to be on the jobs website that Senator Ringuette talked about. Internal postings are published on Publiservice, which is an internal net-based system.
There is discretion as to the use of newspaper ads. If an external job is advertised in a newspaper, there is quite a bit of obligation already to ensure that the advertising is national. Thus there would be no incremental cost. Whenever the commission puts out an ad, we do it across the country. We cannot pick just one or two newspapers.
Senator Rompkey: If you have the ability to determine where the applicant must reside to apply, has anyone ever questioned whether that requirement is in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Constitution? Has that ever come up?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, that is an issue. Mr. Arseneault can explain that further. We have been clearly advised that we cannot use a provincial boundary because we then run into other obligations. That has not been an issue if we determine a reasonable geographic area that will give us a pool.
Perhaps Mr. Arseneault would like to add to that.
Gaston Arseneault, General Counsel, Public Service Commission of Canada: A case that went to the Federal Court of Appeal in 1984 was on section 6 of the Charter. The case dealt with whether it turned around the issue of a right to work that people would have.
This is an old Charter decision since it was in 1984. At that time it was decided that the area of competition was valid and not contrary to the Charter, in as much as the area chosen was not a provincial boundary. Today, consistently, that has been our view, namely, in as much as we do not use provincial boundaries, it would not be Charter offending.
Senator Rompkey: The second thing that occurred to me was the point that you made about the use of staff time and resources. You said it avoids an unreasonable use of public funds and slowing down the process. Democracy can be slow, too. If I were king I could say, ``Off with your head,'' but I must go through other processes, which are often slow and expensive, as Churchill said more eloquently than I can.
I want to look at the amendment:
When establishing a geographic criterion in an externally advertised appointment process, the Commission shall establish a national area of selection except where, in the opinion of the Commission, it is not in the best interest of the public service to do so.
The commission decides. Perhaps you can explain to me how the commission would decide. Perhaps you could say whether there is any appeal and, if so, to whom.
Ms. Barrados: The idea behind the amendment is that we agree with the notion of having a national area of selection for external appointments. That is an important element of what we have done here. We have said that is not the case for internal processes.
The rule is ``national area of selection.'' There can be exceptions. The kinds of exceptions I have in mind are things we do with our current policy, such as very short-term hires. If you have a short-term need, a short-term employee can be hired without national area of selection.
We are working a lot on the student programs. Currently, student programs are excluded from the application of the Public Service Employment Act. I am not comfortable with that, because all the criteria, including merit-based and fair and accessible criteria, technically do not apply. I do not believe that is the way to go.
With the change in the act, I want to bring student programs under the act. However, can we then impose national area of selection on those student programs? We are looking at our experience and it is not good; it is not persuasive that it is the way to proceed. Students apply but then do not accept the job.
The other part is the ability to make exceptions where the systems are not implemented. We are currently rolling out an electronic system, but if something happens with the roll-out, we need to be able to slow it down in some way.
That is the idea behind this part. I believe national area of selection should be used for externally advertised jobs, but I have learned in my two and a half years at the commission that I cannot anticipate everything. I am surprised every day by something new I had not thought of. A blanket removal of something worries me with such a large organization with high volumes. I quoted some numbers. There are many applications. Three quarters of a million people applied for jobs through the jobs website last year. We have to deal with those people in a fair and reasonable way.
The idea is to apply the act, but in an evaluative way. We must be able to make exceptions where we really have trouble and applying the act does not make sense.
Senator Rompkey: You have given me some instances such as students and short term employees, although it occurs to me that short term work has a way of becoming long term.
Do you need to explain to anyone if you depart from the policy? Can anyone question that departure from policy? Is there any appeal?
Ms. Barrados: I am a commission so it is not just me; I have commissioners. The changes in policy are made by the commission. The commission is responsible for the policy and the enforcement of it. I would need to explain departures from policy before parliament. Clearly I am obligated to report on these departures on a regular basis.
All applications, on individual cases, are subject to judicial review, if there are grounds. I am not sure whether departures from policy fall under that provision. Where we have violated the Charter, we go to court. Unfair treatment of an individual is subject to judicial review.
Senator Murray: When you make an exception to the rule for the good of the public service in a particular case, can you be required to state why you made that exception and why it was not in the interests of the public service to follow the general rule? Can you be required to do that with respect to a particular instance?
Ms. Barrados: I am required to articulate all my policies. I am required to explain and document my decisions, and we provide that explanation on all policy framework, meetings of the commission and all decisions we take.
Senator Murray: That information is immediately available to the public?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: How does the amendment you have submitted for our consideration, subclause 3(3), differ from current practice?
Ms. Barrados: The current practice gives us total discretion. Putting it in a non-technical way, this subclause, in statute, tells us we must have national area of selection unless there is a very good reason not to have it. This provision limits our discretion and provides direction on how we exercise that discretion.
Senator Eggleton: Does it really? If you use discretion now, this provision still allows you to do so. I see no difference in practical application.
Ms. Barrados: In practical application, as I said in my opening remarks, I believe in national area of selection. We are moving to a policy of national area of selection for external jobs. There are some instances in which we do not apply it. I agree with the senator that short-term employment tends to become long term, and one of my missions is to deal with that.
I think we can accomplish that mission without legislation, in the policy. I understand Senator Ringuette's frustration that this change is not taking place as fast as she would like it to and she is not sure we will actually make the change. She is saying we need to go through statute to ensure there is a greater obligation on the part of the commission. Once something says, ``you shall,'' I take it very seriously. That means I must do it and, where I do not, I need good reasons why: I must be prepared to come here on a regular basis and explain why.
Senator Eggleton: Let me take the example Senator Rompkey gave of 50 people piling into the back of a truck in Fort McMurray to come to a job in Ottawa. I do not know why people would come from Fort McMurray these days. Most people are going there.
In any event, I understand the analogy. I am mindful of the comments made by Senator Ringuette that the commission must be fair and equitable. There are 50 labour positions in Ottawa and these people are coming from Fort McMurray to apply. Under this provision, they would not pile into the back of a truck. You would send them return tickets to come for interviews. What would you do in a case like that? Would you still call it national area of selection, or would you say it is not practical to hire that way?
Ms. Barrados: I answered earlier in the context of the Treasury Board policy. That policy for travel and relocation expenses is applied with discretion. Managers have discretion as to whether they pay for travel and relocation. There is some discussion now about the exercise of that discretion. I have written to the Secretary of the Treasury Board asking for clarification. I have not yet received a response.
That is one reason I am keen to implement this policy in a stepped and measured way. I want to make those assessments and, if unanticipated obligations kick in, I want to know about them before we push the policy further.
Senator Eggleton: Would managers not be able to get around this policy easily with casual term positions and temporary employment? Will the policy not facilitate more of that kind of hiring, thereby circumventing this policy?
Ms. Barrados: I worry about two methods of circumventing the policy. One is casual employment, which was taken out of the purview of the Public Service Employment Act in the last amendment to the act, so it is not covered. My second area of concern is that the new legislation provides for greater discretion by managers to use an unadvertised process. If you use an unadvertised process, you do not require any geographic area of selection. That provision is in the proposed legislation. Yes, I am concerned about not having the tools in place for managers to post and screen electronically, and we support that process through a teleconference interview capability with our regional offices. Those kinds of things need to be in place. Then, we will put in place a perverse incentive and I will come back to complain about the excessive use of the unadvertised processes.
Senator Eggleton: Is there a way of dealing with and eliminating that use to maintain the spirit of Bill S-102?
Ms. Barrados: We are trying to do that through the policy. We are rolling this out, putting systems in place and evaluating as we proceed. However, I want to have a national area of selection for the external processes. I understand Senator Ringuette's concern, and I have heard that concern from other members as well. People in their ridings that should be able to apply for jobs in the public service cannot do so, and they are frustrated by that. Many people are interested in public service work but cannot apply for the jobs.
Senator Eggleton: We do not want favouritism or patronage. However, we also do not want people wrongfully accused of it. As well, we do not want people to feel so intimidated by the rules that they are afraid to recommend someone for a job, even though the person is ideally suited to the position. In the end, the loser might come forward with accusations of favouritism or patronage. Both Senator Murray and I focused on that issue as well with Senator Ringuette. Can you comment on that aspect?
Ms. Barrados: The current regime has a mechanism in place whereby employees that believe there has been abuse of authority that includes personal favouritism can go to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, PSST. For external cases and those involving fraud or political activity, people can go to the Public Service Commission. I have broad discretion to investigate wrongdoing in the process. My reaction to the specific clause is that many provisions in the existing act already set such things out, but we would add another one. If senators want us to do some work on that, we would do so. I suggest that the committee speak to the PSST because any work in that area would need to be mindful of the machinery already in place. The work of the commission would guide the investigations and would need to be altered by the individual results of those processes because they are quasi-judicial. Obviously, the tribunal must remain independent and perform its quasi-judicial work in terms of evolving how they apply and use the terms.
It is truly in the hands of the Senate to determine the best way to proceed. The PSC would take on that responsibility provided it would not affect in any way other machinery that is in place, because that would not be appropriate.
Senator Eggleton: Would the bill be acceptable with the PSC amendments in place? Could you live within that framework?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, I could accept it because I agree with the principle.
The Chairman: The committee has a copy of the amendments prepared by the PSC.
Senator Stratton: In light of the proposed amendments, I recommend that the committee hear again from the sponsor of the bill, Senator Ringuette. I am not trying to delay the bill but the amendments must be tabled and the bill be set aside until we have heard all witness testimony. We could hear from Senator Ringuette at tomorrow's meeting at 6:15 p.m. with respect to the amendment, and then proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: Clearly, we will not finish everything today. If senators agree, we will proceed as recommended by Senator Murray.
I have two outstanding questions from senators for Ms. Barrados and the Public Service Commission, after which we will adjourn this portion of the meeting until tomorrow.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to ask about the short-term needs of the internal staffing processes. Is there a pool of people that rotates through various departments to meet these under-six-month jobs? Does that staffing process, to any extent, include maternity and parenting leaves?
Ms. Barrados: The internal system provides managers with the discretion. With the proposed legislation, we are trying to have greater collective staffing so that our processes pre-qualify people. Often the needs are short-term and unanticipated. Maternity leave is anticipated but the specific dates often remain unknown until the last minute. I am concerned about the needs that cannot be anticipated in respect of the planning processes. Certainly, I agree with Senator Ringuette's concern about human resources planning.
My annual report is coming out next week, Senator Ringuette, and you will be happy to hear that there have been improvements. Things are getting better. The concern is about the kinds of needs that cannot be anticipated in the planning processes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In the PSC pool of labour, what percentage of short-term jobs are covered by those people? How much do you have to hire out?
Ms. Barrados: Is that the internal or the external pool?
Senator Nancy Ruth: My question is about the internal pool. If the pool of people is able to service most short-term vacancies, then the geographic restriction might not be required. The answer is yes, I am sure.
Ms. Barrados: The Public Service Commission is spread across the country, with 40 per cent in the National Capital Region and 60 per cent elsewhere across the country. The needs are different regionally and staffing tends to be operated by department. I do not think that the kind of pool you envision exists, although it might. Perhaps Mr. Lemaire would like to add to that.
Donald Lemaire, Vice-President, Staffing and Assessment Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: Within the pool for existing processes, a collective staffing initiative allows us to fill more than one position. For short- term assignments to fill in for someone on short-term sick leave or maternity leave, et cetera, there is not a pool of resources available. We have talked about having an internal personnel agency but that agency would require funding to maintain a cadre of people for short-term assignment as needed. Such a system would require negotiation with our partners to determine the conditions and terms of use because no government organization is mandated to perform that kind of activity or line of business. Currently, each department is responsible for its short-term needs.
For example, for our branch to have a pool of people, we would need to assume they would receive work assignments in various departments. That practice would require the appropriate infrastructure to make it work. That is why personnel agencies currently provide that service. There is no similar internal mechanism in government to that of the personnel agencies.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Barrados, can you confirm the following comment and then respond? I am led to believe that people sometimes circumvent this geographic restriction by borrowing an address in the area that qualifies. What happens when you discover that? Is that deemed laudable initiative or disqualifying deceit?
Ms. Barrados: We go through an investigative process and if that situation is found, we revoke the position because it is considered fraud.
Senator Mitchell: If you cannot find somebody for a job in a given restricted area, do you, as a matter of course, drop that restriction and look elsewhere, or is that shift difficult to make?
Ms. Barrados: The decisions about whether there is a geographic area are made by the managers, because we expect them to understand what their pool of available candidates is. Now, there are requirements, in some cases, for all officer jobs in the National Capital Commission: there is no choice. If you post a particular process and you do not find anyone because you have limited the geographic restriction, you repost it and change the geographic restriction: you make a broader.
Senator Mitchell: We were told some time ago — or at least I came across this example of hiring — of a requirement for a position of director general of fisheries that applicants live within 50 kilometres of Ottawa. Is that urban myth or is that situation actually true?
Ms. Barrados: If it occurred, it is no longer allowed.
Senator Mitchell: Is that what you refer to when you say all officer jobs in Ottawa must be unrestricted?
Ms. Barrados: That includes all jobs in the EX category throughout the country, EX jobs minus 1 and minus 2. We are running pilots in the region as well, so that requirement includes not only the national capital; we have two pilots running.
Senator Mitchell: For jobs that would otherwise be restricted to a given region, let us say Cape Breton or Regina, is there resentment in those local regions amongst employees who must compete with people who are brought in from outside? Is that flip side an issue?
Ms. Barrados: I have always had that concern. If we create job opportunities in a particular region for economic development purposes, then we open up this process to competition. In balance, it is national in principle. We find that when the decision comes down to moving, people do not always move. I do not think this change will result in a massive movement of people. It is for those people really interested in a job and willing to move their family. My view is that it should be available regardless of where it is in the country.
Senator Ringuette: One quick question, in regard to geographic restriction. You mentioned that it is up to the managers to decide whether to include a geographic restriction in a job posting. On the other hand, you have a policy, and you also have in the legislation, that it is up to the commission to decide upon that. There is a definite conflict because the commission has legislative authority for geographic restriction, but you told us a few minutes ago that geographic restriction is up to the managers.
I understand the commission's mandate to delegate authority, but that proves my point. At the end of the day, when we deal with policy and delegation of authority, the policy provides room for unfairness in the system.
Ms. Barrados: Senator, with all due respect, the policy in place is a policy that says you must have national area of selection for job categories EX and EX minus 1 and minus 2, and you must have national area of selection for officer- level jobs in the National Capital Commission. We review the postings and they will not go ahead if they do not have that. There is discretion in the other places where the policy does not yet apply. There, the manager has discretion. As we roll this policy out, the discretion will be left in those places where we feel including them in the policy is not workable or we are not sure it is workable. Discretion will be left also for internal hiring — you are correct — given our proposal.
The rest of the hirin would not be discretionary. We have the instruments to enforce it.
The Chairman: Ms. Barrados, I would like you to clarify two points. One is at page 4 of your submission where you say that staffing processes would become more time consuming, slower and more costly. Do you have any objective information in that regard?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, we do. We put together a study under the old legislation on the time to staff. We are trying to compile average times from the time the competition starts until the time the person is in place. If the competition is small, about five or six people, the number is good. People are hired in an average of 13 weeks to 14 weeks; from start of process to placing the person in the position. For big processes, we are talking about six months. The bigger the process is, the more time is involved. That was the situation without the electronic systems. I hope we have those electronic systems in place. They are not a panacea; a lot of work that goes into making electronic processes work but they should reduce that time.
The Chairman: You indicated that impact assessment would be a pre-condition to going to a Canada-wide process for all positions, for all externally advertised positions. Is this impact assessment underway now? When do you expect that assessment to be finished?
Ms. Barrados: It is underway now and I brought some preliminary numbers with me today. These numbers are a first-round look. We expect to know what is happening by November or December, because, of course, the policy came into being April 1, so we need time that for the competitions. I am interested in both how we are doing with the applications to the national capital jobs and then whether applicants are taking the jobs.
On a preliminary basis, there is an expansion beyond the national capital so that the geographic area tends to be mostly from Ontario and Quebec, with about five per cent from outside of Ontario and Quebec. When we actually go through the processes, it remains to be seen what the hiring is like.
The Chairman: We will deal with this bill tomorrow evening. If you have anything to share with us in writing with regards to preliminary observations that would be helpful for us.
Apart from that, I want to thank you very much for being here. We look forward to your report next week, and Mr. Arseneault and Mr. Lemaire, thank you very much.
Senator Stratton: I want to inform the committee that Senator Cools has decided to step down from her duties as vice-chair of this committee and work on this committee for the interim. I, therefore, want to propose Nancy Ruth as vice chair.
The Chairman: Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare Senator Nancy Ruth the deputy-chair of the National Finance Committee.
The committee continued in camera.