Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of November 28, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:22 p.m. to consider the estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
This is the fifth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for this session. The committee's field of interest is government spending and operations, including the reviewing of activities of officers of Parliament and those various individuals and groups that help parliamentarians hold the government to account.
We accomplish this task through estimates of expenditures and funds made available to officers of Parliament to perform their functions, and through budget implementation acts and other matters referred to this Senate committee.
Today, I am pleased to welcome from the Treasury Board Secretariat Dan Danagher, Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat. He is the brother of Laura Danagher, who has appeared before this committee on many occasions.
We also have from Treasury Board, Tom Scott, Executive Director, Government Operations and Services, Human Resources Directorate.
From the Canada Public Service Agency, we have Kami Ramcharan, Director General, Workforce and Workplace Renewal, Canada Public Service Agency.
Thank you all for coming this evening. For context, these officials have been invited to appear before this committee to expand on the issues raised on November 14, 2007, when Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, appeared before our committee to discuss the 2006-07 annual report of the Public Service Commission of Canada as well as the results of four audits and two statistical studies performed by the commission.
At that meeting, Ms. Barrados raised a number of issues. They ranged from employment equity practices within the public service, to the use of casual employees, to human resource planning, and to funding allocated to the Public Service Commission as its responsibilities change under the Public Service Employment Act and the public service modernization legislation that we handle in this committee as well.
I welcome you here, and we look forward to understanding how the agency and the Public Service Commission work together under this new regime.
[Translation]
Kami Ramcharan, Director General, Workforce and Workplace Renewal, Canada Public Service Agency: Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to your committee on behalf of the Canada Public Service Agency. I am Director General of the Diversity Division, Workforce and Workplace Renewal.
[English]
I have been asked to speak to you about some issues of interest raised during the appearance of Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission, on the occasion of tabling the Public Service Commission annual report for 2006-07. In particular, I am here to discuss employment equity but, of course, officials of the agency will be pleased to discuss other items that you may wish to raise with them in the future.
On behalf of my vice-president, Karen Ellis, I would like to express her apologies for not being able to come here today to answer your questions.
The agency was formerly known as the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. It is now known as the Canada Public Services Agency. It was created in 2003 by bringing together units from the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission.
The agency representing the employer is responsible for human resource management of the public service, including monitoring the implementation of employment equity by departments and agencies for whom the Treasury Board is the employer. That responsibility includes about 65 departments and agencies that employ approximately 175,000 employees.
[Translation]
The agency's mission is to modernize human resources management in Canada's public service.
[English]
In 2006, the Clerk of the Privy Council initiated the public services renewal process, for which the agency provides policy and operational support. Renewal is about building a strong and sustainable federal public service for the future. Integral to all aspects of renewal is a workforce that can draw upon a diversity of origins, cultures, views, ideas, experiences and perspectives from across Canada.
The agency is committed to providing leadership and oversight that enables managers and public service employees to deliver results for Canadians, including a representative and inclusive workforce.
In working to create a modern professional public service that will serve all Canadians and contribute to Canada's prosperity, the agency will continue to integrate employment equity into strategies and initiatives to renew the public service.
[Translation]
My responsibilities within the agency include the policy on employment equity and the policy on the duty to accommodate.
[English]
We assess departmental performance on employment equity through the TBS Management Accountability Framework.
[Translation]
We work with departments whose results indicate that they could improve performance. In order to support departments in their implementation of these policies, we provide advice and guidance.
[English]
We provide tools and we deliver conferences and workshops to departments, targeted specifically to managers, to help them understand their responsibility under the Employment Equity Act and government policies. We work with our partners in helping to advance employment equity in the public service. Our partners include the Public Service Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canada School of Public Service. With those three organizations we have created a committee in order to work more collaboratively on this issue.
Our other partners include bargaining agents and the three national employment equity councils: the National Council of Visible Minorities, the National Council of Aboriginal Federal Employees and the National Council of Federal Employees with Disabilities.
Since the federal public service first became subject to the Employment Equity Act in 1996, our representation of women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities has steadily improved. As of March 2006, our representation of women, Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities exceed their workforce availability.
Initial results for 2007, which have not yet been published, show that the representation rates for those groups are still above their workforce availability and those for visible minorities have increased.
[Translation]
Although the representation of visible minorities is still not equal to their workforce availability, we have made progress.
[English]
From 2001 to 2006, almost 6,000 visible minorities have been added to the core public administration. The number of visible minority executives within the public service has more than doubled during that time. We have success stories, especially with respect to centrally administered departmental programs.
The agency has developed concrete means to ensure equal access to executive-level positions by supporting developmental programs with high levels of visible minority representation within the Career Assignment Program, the Management Trainee Program and the Accelerated Economist Training Program. Many participants of these programs are the future managers and leaders of the federal public service and some will go on to executive-level positions. Their progression in the system is an important part of the steady and incremental cultural change that is necessary for diversity to become truly part of the way the public service works.
The Accelerated Executive Development Program, which is targeted to directors and directors general who demonstrate strong leadership potential, provides for investments in the development and career progress of successful candidates. It is similar to the other centralized programs in that the visible minority participation rate exceeds their workforce availability.
[Translation]
The leaders of those programs have done an excellent job integrating employment equity considerations into their planning in order to achieve the desired representation.
[English]
Several departments are representative and their methods of achieving employment equity are being studied so we can share their practices with other departments.
Currently, the agency is reaching out to line and hiring managers, in particular through marketing our tools and through a series of national and regional conferences on employment equity and duty to accommodate. We will continue to leverage our strong partnerships, working towards improving representation within the federal public service by providing advice and guidance to departments and agencies.
We are currently revising the Employment Equity Policy, which applies to all departments and agencies for which the Treasury Board is the employer. This new policy will be clearer, simpler and results-based to support the integration of employment equity goals into all aspects of human resources management and business planning, as well as to facilitate accountability for results. It will replace the current policy, which was approved in 1999.
Our revised policy, which we hope will become effective in April 2008, will set out the accountability of deputy ministers for achieving representation in their departments.
We are also developing a strategy that will link to the elements of the PS Renewal Action Plan in order to ensure that employment equity considerations are fully integrated into renewal efforts. This strategy is especially important with respect to human resource planning and recruitment initiatives.
[Translation]
The CPSA is committed to working with departments and agencies towards ensuring that the public service is representative of the Canadian society that it serves and of visible minorities.
I would now be pleased to take your questions.
[English]
Senator Murray: We do not have a copy of the witness's statement. I appreciate the reasons why she did not feel comfortable with circulating it. However, now that she has made her presentation, can we have copies made quickly so we can have it in front of us?
The Chair: I have no problem with that request. It would have been easier if we had had this statement beforehand. We were not following much of what you were saying, unfortunately.
We will make copies and circulate them immediately.
Can you explain what you mean by the term, ``exceeds workforce availability''? A week ago, Ms. Barrados said before the committee that she was disappointed in the employment equity practices that she has seen throughout the public service, and that the percentage of hires was below the increase in the public service but the percentage of visible minorities being hired was down.
You seemed to be saying the exact opposite. Can you clarify that for us?
Ms. Ramcharan: I am not saying the opposite. In the agency, we look after employees within the public service. We do not look at employees coming from the outside into the public service. Within the current ranks of the public service, we are improving the representation of visible minorities at higher levels within the public service. Although Ms. Barrados' statistics indicated that the rate of visible minority hires into the public service is decreasing, I am saying that within the public service for current employees, the rates at certain levels are increasing steadily. Although recruitment rates have been down, the overall representation rates for visible minorities in the public service are increasing. Overall, the population of visible minorities within the federal public service is higher than last year. The numbers coming into the public service are lower, but the total number within the public service right now is higher than last year.
Senator Nancy Ruth: By what percentage?
Ms. Ramcharan: We have not yet completed the 2007 percentage rates. We are still analyzing that information. It looks like it is roughly .2 per cent higher than last year.
The Chair: Hiring is taking place now by the deputy ministers.
Ms. Ramcharan: Yes.
The Chair: The Public Service Commission is conducting an audit-type function in large part, and then you look at these hires, who are public servants within the public service and are setting standards, rules and various levels of performance for the hiring activities of the various deputy ministers?
Ms. Ramcharan: The federal public service, along the lines of other federally regulated organizations, is governed by the Employment Equity Act. We have a role and responsibility as an employer to look at the Employment Equity Act and to look at how those groups that are managed within the public service have access, the same as everyone else within the public service.
The Public Service Commission also has a role within the Employment Equity Act. If I look at a continuum between the Canada Public Service Agency and the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission is responsible, along with departments, from the point of intake up to the appointment process. Once employees are within the public service, the agency, for those organizations where the Treasury Board is the employer, looks after representation in terms of increases into the executive ranks of the federal public service, ensuring that it is fully representative in accordance with workforce variabilities that are published throughout the census or that are calculated from the census.
The Chair: There will be more questions along those lines. Questions can be directed to either the Canada Public Service Agency or the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Treasury Board Secretariat does not have an opening statement. Ms. Barrados gave the statement for the Public Service Commission. The Canada Public Service Agency is the other part, and we are trying to understand the role between these two groups and Treasury Board.
Senator Ringuette: I have a lot of questions and they are directed to any of you.
Let me start with this one: The turnover rate within the public service has been established at 40 per cent. Why is it 40 per cent? What is happening to cause this rate to be at least twice as high as the private sector?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question. I know it is one of the issues raised in the presentation by Ms. Barrados. I know it is one of the things that the Public Service Commission has said they would look at, and I know that the agency is interested in looking at it as well. I know conversations will happen, and I am positive that someone better able to speak to that question will be back.
Senator Ringuette: Fair is fair, but this was within the tabled report from the commission. I am sure, as a courtesy before tabling such a report, your agency would have had the opportunity to look at the issues that were identified. Between the time that you saw the report — which was probably a few months ago — to the tabling of the report last week, have you not looked at these numbers? You say you do not know why, that you are only looking at these numbers now. This situation is alarming and Ms. Barrados is justified in saying so.
Do you have a comment on this issue?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, I cannot comment on that issue as I am responsible for employment equity within the agency. Unfortunately, I would not have reviewed those sections of the report before they were tabled, and so I cannot respond to that question. However, I know that the agency would be more than willing to come back and talk to you at a future date concerning your question.
Senator Ringuette: That, Mr. Chair, is a definite must for us. Maybe the people at Treasury Board who are responsible to fund and oversee these rules, regulations, policies and mandates of the agency can guide us.
Dan Danagher, Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat: The issue of staff turnover is not one to which Treasury Board policy applies. It would be the responsibility of either the Public Service Commission or the agency dealing with the human resource management side of the house.
Senator Stratton: My understanding is that Ms. Barrados stated that the 40 per cent movement is primarily within departments, meaning that people are moving from job to job.
Senator Ringuette: The number is even higher for top-ranking officials. It goes up to 58 per cent, which is even more alarming.
Maybe you can answer this question: I was told in 1994 or 1995 that there was a policy within the public service, Treasury Board and Privy Council Office that the more a person moved within the system, the better their chances were for swift professional advancement. Is this still a policy within the system? If not, has the public service been advised of this change? Will you tell me you are in employment equity and you have no information on this matter?
Ms. Ramcharan: I have not seen a written policy in Treasury Board or through the agency where it states that it is expected that a person would move up the system quickly by moving through many jobs. I am sorry. I do not have the answer to your question.
Mr. Danagher: I make it a habit to read most of the policies. Having seen and read a number, I have never run across such a policy.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chair, I hope that the people of the Canada Public Service Agency will send additional people that can answer our questions. I agree that you have a field of expertise and knowledge, though it appears my questions are not in your field. Most of my questions deal with issues that you likely cannot answer.
We, in this committee, were told a while ago that one of the departments that was missing human resources was Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Can you advise me if that matter has been looked into?
Mr. Danagher: Mr. Chair, I can tell you that the Auditor General's office conducted an audit of human resources in Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. I have been involved in that audit and we are in the process of finalizing the terms of reference for an interdepartmental committee that we agreed to. That committee will identify the challenges that the government faces in assigning people abroad and putting in place a better governance model to address the rapidly-changing environment. That is as far as I can go because that committee has not yet met.
Senator Ringuette: You know as well as I do that the report by the Auditor General is two years old.
The pace and reaction is slow. If my memory is correct, the specific issue was in regards to the employees that were assigned to foreign service. That being said, there was also an issue in regards to the employees located in Ottawa.
Mr. Danagher: My understanding is that the audit covered the whole spectrum of human resources in that department. My only involvement is on the international side because Treasury Board Secretariat has responsibilities for the foreign service directives.
Senator Ringuette: Very well, let us move to the international side. We also have a major problem in regards to immigration officers within our embassies. Will that committee include immigration officers?
Mr. Danagher: It is designed to include all departments with a significant presence abroad, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Therefore, the answer is yes. That presence includes trade as well.
Senator Ringuette: Well, I received one answer. I am happy.
Mr. Chair, another major issue that has been identified in the past in this committee is reclassification reform. It had been undertaken and stopped. We were told it would be looked into once more to try to come to an understanding. This issue is within the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Mr. Danagher: It is with the agency.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chair, can I ask that we invite additional people from the agency that can provide us with answers on the different issues that I have mentioned, including classification reform and the recruitment and renewal of the public service? What are they doing in regard to the 80 per cent of human resources, equalling over 45,000 employees a year, hired as casual, term and indeterminate?
Senator Murray: What are you asking?
The Chair: She is asking a question on a number of points, but she has not asked this one before.
Senator Murray: I will get on this subject after her.
Senator Ringuette: Remember when Ms. Barrados came before us and her report indicated that 80 per cent of the new hiring on a yearly basis — she was looking at 2006-07 — was either casual, part-time, term or indeterminate. This practice is not how you build up the public service and hire competent people.
Competent people are looking for some kind of job security, at the minimum. The other thing is that this information also means that only 20 per cent of hiring on a yearly basis is through the external process.
The Chair: Can the witness comment on this situation?
Senator Murray: Before they do, we have the benefit of a quote, albeit an indirect one from Ms. Barrados from the notes provided to us by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service. The note says:
Over an eight-year period, the PSC found more than 80% of the 86,000 new indeterminate (permanent) employees had prior Public Service experience, whether a term or casual employee, a student or trainee. Moreover, the tendency for a casual hire to become employed under the PSEA was greater for those employed in the National Capital Region (51%) than for those employed in the regions (35%).
I would say that term, casual, student and trainee are different subcategories.
The Chair: I have the actual quote from her presentation here and there is nothing about students in Ms. Barrados's quote. It is ``75 per cent either as casual or term employees.''
Senator Murray: The notes from the library are more explicit.
Senator Ringuette: We agree this approach is not a way to build up the human resources required to provide good government services to the taxpayers of Canada.
The Chair: Did you put your question to any of our witnesses to see if anyone here can comment on some of these points that we brought them here to comment on?
Are the witnesses aware of these matters? Have they seen the transcript of the presentation by Ms. Barrados?
Ms. Ramcharan: Yes, I have, and unfortunately I am not able to comment on those numbers.
The Chair: On that aspect, okay. Can witnesses from Treasury Board Secretariat comment?
Mr. Danagher: Neither can we. Understand that our policies relate to people once they become employed in the core public administration, so whether they are casual, term or indeterminate, our policies apply to them.
The mix of casual, term or indeterminate employees is a decision a deputy minister or a department would make, understanding departments like Statistics Canada, when they are doing a census, hire a significant number of casual employees, much the same as the Canada Revenue Agency does during tax seasons, et cetera. The decisions typically are left up to departments when they plan their mix of employees in their human resource planning.
Our policies apply to employees once they are in place, so I cannot comment on the mix — the correct mix, the wrong mix, whether the numbers that Ms. Barrados is pointing to are —
Senator Murray: I want to refer to the testimony of Ms. Barrados, and the questions and answers. Happily, my short-term memory has not disappeared completely yet.
It seems to me that when we asked her about this question of casual and indeterminate employees and so forth, she told us that we would be better advised to have the Canada Public Service Agency before us. We have the agency here, but with great respect, our friend, the witness, is the director of diversity. She is not, I think, comfortable or indeed well enough informed on those other aspects including casual and indeterminate positions, or another one I was interested in, bilingual designation positions. I think we need to invite one of your colleagues from the agency to come, and I do not know how this request slipped through the cracks.
Anyway, we are glad to have you and we can pursue some of the diversity matters with you. However, we need to invite someone from the agency to talk about these matters that Senator Ringuette has raised.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette has made the same point and the steering committee will take that into consideration.
Can you clarify the point you raised with Mr. Danagher? If it is desirable within the public service structure to set certain standards in relation to new hires — going back to the point that so many hires now are brought in on a casual or term basis, given experience and then hired — who would set those standards? As you say, the actual employing is done by the deputy heads —
Mr. Danagher: Mr. Chair, my understanding is that Ms. Barrados made the point that standards need to be established. I can tell you that those standards would not fall within the current purview of the Treasury Board Secretariat because we do not have jurisdiction over standards around targets for hiring and types of hiring. Typically, that responsibility would be the purview of the Public Service Commission and the Canada Public Service Agency.
The Chair: My recollection, and other senators here can help me, is that she was looking somewhere else for these standards to be set and rectified, and it was not in the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Danagher: She might have suggested Treasury Board as the employer, but the employer, of course, is supported now in a lot of human resources issues by two agencies, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the CPSA. With respect to employees, we establish policies around their working conditions — things like leave policies — plus we negotiate collective agreements and that sort of thing. We establish the working conditions, but staffing matters are not within our authority.
The Chair: Are there questions flowing from that?
Senator Murray: In my turn.
The Chair: Your turn is coming but I asked that question for clarification, and whether there are any questions that flow from that clarification?
Senator Ringuette: I am looking at your title, Ms. Ramcharan, and it says director general, workforce and workplace renewal, yet you cannot answer any of my questions.
Ms. Ramcharan: My title is director general, diversity division. I am part of the workplace and workforce renewal sector. My vice-president is Karen Ellis. She is the vice-president of workplace and workforce renewal. Within her sector, there is official languages, diversity division, values and ethics, employment policies —
Senator Ringuette: In reality, Ms. Ellis should have been here tonight.
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, she is in Victoria and could not be here.
The Chair: Thank you for advising the committee earlier of her absence.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is the percentage of women in the public service full time and what are the numbers for visible minorities and disabled?
Ms. Ramcharan: I have the statistics with me. Within the federal public service, the number of women full time is 95,013.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is that 60 per cent?
Ms. Ramcharan: That represents 53.9 per cent.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I do not even want to ask what percentage is in the EX category, but please continue.
Ms. Ramcharan: The number of visible minorities in the federal public service is 15,787. Unfortunately, I do not have the numbers for persons with disabilities or those who are Aboriginal. However, I can obtain that information easily and provide it to the committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to ask about double-dipping. How many of those visible minorities or disabled are also women? How many times do we count them?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, I am not able to tell you how many times we counted them but, as an example, I would be counted as a woman and as a visible minority.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The stats run together.
Ms. Ramcharan: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What impact on policy do all these wonderful people who risk their lives in the public service have on the White man? That is what I want to know. How can I rephrase the question? Testimony before the House of Commons committee during the last session of Parliament by officials from the Department of Justice talked about how well they were doing on gender-based analysis, GBA. The person from justice said that they do not do GBA specifically because over 50 per cent of their department is female and, therefore, it is done. Well, that is not a good analysis for me, and not a satisfactory answer. At some point, because we know that people from different cultures and backgrounds think in different ways, these people will influence policy. Is there any kind of measurement of how change might happen in policy because of these different equity groups?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, no research has been done to determine how to measure that cultural change.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When will you start such research?
Ms. Ramcharan: I am not exactly sure when I would be starting.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Has anyone talked about it?
Ms. Ramcharan: Within my division, we have not talked about the kind of research that would measure the cultural impact. We recognize that having a diversity of views within the public service will influence public policy and that is one reason that we want a representative public service and that we are working toward achieving better representation in all four groups.
We have not conducted any research that would provide what that representation means and how it has had an impact.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you see your department conducting this research within the next three years?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question because it is not on the research agenda at this time. However, it can be considered.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Will you consider it?
Ms. Ramcharan: Will I consider it?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, you, because I do not know who else to talk to about it.
Ms. Ramcharan: Absolutely, I will consider it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How do we get this research off the ground? It is no good to continue hiring and to simply talk about it until we know its impact. Someone should measure it. Many academics would love a slice of this contract pie, and I would be glad to give you a list of names if you want them. Please, if you could move it along, I would be most grateful.
Ms. Ramcharan: Okay.
Senator Murray: I will begin with the officials from Treasury Board. If you do not have the answers or cannot comment on these matters, perhaps you can let us know who can do so in an authoritative way.
With regard to casual and indeterminate term employees, there is a policy somewhere in the vast machinery of the federal government. I would bet the family farm, if I had one, that there is such a policy. Somewhere, criteria have been established and guidelines exist for deputy heads or departments as to the circumstances under which it is appropriate to engage casual or indeterminate employees. I would like to see those criteria at some time and hear from someone who is able to discuss them with the committee.
As well, a statement of the economic and fiscal considerations exists somewhere. Is there a kind of perverse incentive to deputy heads or managers to hire casual or indeterminate employees? How much is saved typically in these cases because for one thing, you do not have to pay them benefits, right? Such employees are not in the union. As I understand it, you can hire casual employees for 90 days, then renew and renew. You can let them go and bring them back. I do not know how this is accomplished and that is why I ask these questions. Who knows how the system works? It would be interesting for the committee to try to understand this process well.
I am not as scandalized as some people are, including my friend Senator Ringuette, by the fact that many of these people move on to permanent jobs in the public service, perhaps because the casual position turns out to be an apprenticeship program, in some cases. Something else that is interesting and needs to be commented upon is that starting people as casual employees might be a way of avoiding the probationary period and the relevant decisions to be made in that regard. One witness who appeared with Ms. Barrados the other evening indicated that managers are not using the provision for letting people go after probationary periods. It occurs to me that letting people morph from casual into permanent positions creates less of a stain on one's record when you simply are not renewed as a casual than if you are let go after a probationary period of one year. Perhaps we should look at the provisions for probation and how they work, and whether this business of evolving casual employees into permanent ones is a way that the managers have found to get around those provisions.
If you cannot comment, let us know who can and we will pursue a response from elsewhere.
Mr. Danagher: We will find out who can provide the answers for the committee. To be clear, Mr. Chairman, the honourable senator is asking to speak with someone who can speak definitively about the policies around hiring casual employees versus temporary and indeterminate employees.
Senator Murray: Are they with Treasury Board or somewhere else?
Mr. Danagher: It is a combination but yes, the Treasury Board Secretariat has people who can answer those questions. We will definitely defer to those people and inform the clerk at shortest notice.
The Chair: Any studies have been done or anything that can be produced beforehand might be helpful. That path may be better than trying another panel of witnesses.
Senator Murray: I thought I heard the president say when she was here that the proportion of casual employees in the federal public apparatus is not much different from the proportion in the private sector. Did I hear that correctly? Can you confirm that?
Mr. Danagher: I can only verify that I have read her report and seen what she said. I have not done studies in the private sector.
Senator Murray: You might flag that item also as something to pursue with someone from Treasury Board. Do you know anything about the designation of bilingual positions? It is in your general —
Ms. Ramcharan: It is in the agency, yes.
Senator Murray: However it is not part of your knowledge? We will ask someone to talk to us about that subject one day.
Let me ask this question about employment equity groups, especially visible minorities, because hiring visible minorities and Aboriginals was way down. Their applications were up and recruitment was down, correct?
Ms. Ramcharan: That is right.
Senator Murray: That is what she found. I raised the question the other night about whether the federal government is in a lot of competition for visible minorities, Aboriginals and others with the rest of the public sector, and the private sector as well. Is the proportion of visible minorities or Aboriginals in our federal service comparable? It is, of course, comparable, but what are the proportions in the private sector and in the provincial and municipal public sectors, and are they stealing a march on us? Are they more successful in recruiting these people and, if so, why? Do you have a handle on that?
Ms. Ramcharan: I do not have a handle personally on what is happening in the private sector. I know for those organizations that are federally regulated and fall under the Employment Equity Act, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Employment Equity Act, produces statistics that show representation rates of other organizations that are federally regulated. Therefore, the statistics do not include all organizations; they include only those organizations.
Senator Murray: We would need to go to the provincial reports, whatever they may be. I do not know how many provinces have some kind of employment equity legislation or programs. I am sure most do.
Ms. Ramcharan: I think many provinces do.
We do not compare ourselves. We know, within the federal public service, our representation for women, Aboriginal people and persons with disabilities are at workforce availability levels. In that, we exceed or meet the representation rates for those groups whereas for visible minorities we are a bit lower than workforce availability.
Senator Murray: We all compete for the same people. It would be interesting to know the success rates of provincial and municipal governments and the private sector. I refer to those organizations that are not federally regulated.
Senator Chaput: My question is to Ms. Ramcharan. I am trying to understand the kind of work you do. You are Director General, Diversity Division, Workforce and Workplace Renewal. In your presentation you say that you develop policies on employment equity; you evaluate and develop tools.
How do you develop policies without addressing the question of hiring and without looking at the kinds of jobs these people are hired for? As an example, if, say, you have a higher percentage of Aboriginal women, if most of them have part-time or casual employment, that situation is not progress. How do you develop policies and evaluate and develop tools without touching the hiring process and looking at the kinds of jobs they have?
Ms. Ramcharan: In terms of policy development, we focus on employees within the public service. The policies we develop are targeted to deputy ministers or deputy heads, because they have overall responsibility for employees within their department. For example, the new employment equity policy that we are developing provides accountability for deputy ministers whereas the Employment Equity Act, under which we were all governed before, talked about organizational consequences. Now we are talking about deputy minister consequences. For the development of the revised policy that we have undertaken recently, we would work with our partners — partners like the Public Service Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the departments and agencies, the members of employment equity council groups as well as bargaining agents — to figure out what needs to happen within the public service to have better representation.
Senator Chaput: What is the definition of equity? Is it only percentage-wise? What is the definition of equity used to develop policies?
Ms. Ramcharan: We take the actual definition of employment equity directly from the legislation. Although I do not have the legislation before me, we are looking at saying that within their workforce is an availability of people that should be working in their organization. We look at the federal public service and we look at what those percentages should be to reflect the population we serve. For example, visible minorities is 10 per cent; Aboriginal people, I think, is roughly 2 or 3 per cent; persons with disabilities about the same; and the percentage for women is roughly 50 per cent. Then, we look at our organization to see if we are achieving those representation rates. If not, we investigate what measures, tools, et cetera, can help. How can we support managers to ensure they move towards achieving those representation rates while at the same time, not saying we want to bring them in at the bottom levels of the organization? How they are represented throughout the organization is also important.
Senator Stratton: I do not have a question for the panel, although I thank them for appearing. I sense frustration from committee members because we have questions that the panel cannot answer. I do not blame the panel, but my sense is, we are frustrated in certain areas. I suggest that we need a clear understanding of the kinds of questions a given panel is capable of answering. Again, I am not blaming anyone. When you see the title that Mr. Danagher holds, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, what does that title mean and what is its scope? What questions can we ask directly to Mr. Danagher so we are not stuck out in left field.
I am not blaming anyone, but that is the sense I have from this session. I think maybe we ought to go in camera afterwards briefly and decide areas of focus. For instance, Senator Ringuette wants to focus on a certain area and Senator Nancy Ruth wants to focus on a different area. I believe that kind of thing needs to be scoped out a little better than it has been. I hope I can make that comment without prejudice to the people here. I am not blaming anyone.
The Chair: We all feel the same way. Perhaps we did not communicate the areas from Ms. Barrados' Public Service Commission hearing that we wanted to follow-up on as clearly as we should have. That problem does not in any way reflect on the panel, but I think a number of senators are acquiring a bit of flavour for the areas where you can answer questions.
We are always inquisitive, so some senators want to ask questions in a second round.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Given what Senator Stratton said, I wanted to ask a question about gender-based analysis, but does anybody here know its implementation or review by the Treasury Board Secretariat?
Mr. Danagher: No, I am sorry. We asked the champion of gender-based analysis, and she could not come tonight.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There is no point asking a question, right?
Mr. Danagher: I am not an expert in that area, but she would be more than happy to come.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If you were to tell this committee three things that you think are important for us to know, what would they be?
Mr. Danagher: I came here today because we noticed when Ms. Barrados was here on November 14, there was interest in the national area of selection. From our perspective, one of the issues —
Senator Ringuette: There is a bill in the Senate.
Mr. Danagher: We are aware of that. One issue we deal with at Treasury Board Secretariat is travel policy, and there have been questions around the travel directive as it applies to the national area of selection.
Senator Ringuette: What is the travel policy once they are hired?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Scott, what would you want to tell us about?
Tom Scott, Executive Director, Government Operations and Services, Human Resources Directorate, Treasury Board Secretariat: Despite the fact that I could answer some of these questions, I am probably not in a policy position to put some of these things forward. I am here to answer questions around how the commission is funded, how its programs are designed to attract funding, the nature of its quasi-independent approach and how we deal with that approach in terms of funding levels. Regarding funding levels, I can talk in particular about the comment Ms. Barrados made about cost recovery for some of the services and products the commission delivers to other departments and agencies.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Scott: In a number of these other areas, we looked at what other jurisdictions do in comparison, as Ms. Ramcharan said. The five large banks, for example, have recycled chief executive officers almost as quickly as we have gone through deputy ministers, so this phenomenon may be related to the most senior level in any large organization. They can last for only so many years or months in those kinds of jobs, and they either find something different to do or they become burned out.
I have been an operational manager from time to time in the government, and we undertake certain kinds of tasks, such as projects that have a certain lifetime, so we hire people for the life of the project, or when I was working in agriculture, we hired people for a certain season and they expected to work only for the season and then go back to school in the fall. There are reasons why people are hired either short-term for a particular assignment or because the individual does not intend to stay in the government. Some of you will recognize that the generation now arriving does not always see the government as their career and vocation. They come here for a flavour of what goes on, and they may not want to compete for indeterminate positions. They are more than happy to pick and choose as they go along and go back to school. For the project I recently finished, I lost some of my better people who were going back to school. They left term positions where they could have moved on quickly into an indeterminate position, but they chose on their own to leave, as opposed to us not wanting to keep them on.
A policy is in place that says after a certain period of time as a term employee, these employees are automatically adjusted to become an indeterminate employee. At all points in that scale, we pay benefits. We pay the employer's share of the benefits, and they can contribute to the pension plan, and that carries on when they become an indeterminate employee. Indeterminate means permanent, determinate means a fixed period of time, and seasonal means, in the case of agriculture, that they are hired to help bring in the hay and milk the cows.
On a larger scale, such as the ship repair units on the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast — they are separate bargaining agents — often people will accept a job while a military or Coast Guard vessel is in the dock yard, and then they go back to the private sector. They normally search for the best and the best-paying jobs, and often they are only hired for the purpose of the project.
We have a large number of transactions at the front end where employees themselves choose to come in on a short- term basis, as opposed to the employer imposing that condition. As much as we would like to keep some of these people, they also choose to leave, and we see that choice more and more with this next generation. That is not a policy statement. That is what I see as an operational manager, having gone through a number of these things.
From a funding point of view, the Public Service Commission has two responsibilities: one that is mandatory for audit and oversight of the government in terms of the merit principle, and the other is that they are part of the executive in terms of providing services and products to a large number of departments. Some services are provided through appropriation and some through recovery of cost.
For example, all official languages testing, whether oral, written, or comprehension tests, are funded through appropriations, but psychological testing and other assessments for specialized groups like the foreign service are paid for by the department. The Public Service Commission provides a number of these different services on behalf of, and as part of, the executive. They are not truly independent of the government, not in the sense that perhaps Ms. Fraser would like to see the Auditor General being independent in terms of saying where she needs to do her business. So Ms. Barrados has a joint role in terms of balancing her budget.
I know she made a comment that she is coming to the Treasury Board with a proposal for those optional services, such as assessments and other products around performing the screenings. She would like to recover more of those costs, and that will be considered shortly by the Treasury Board.
On the other side, in terms of her mandatory requirements for audit and oversight, those activities are funded through appropriations, and at this point she is like any other deputy head. She will come in and make her case to the Treasury Board for ongoing funding. We will bring that to Parliament to obtain authority for spending. In that sense, there is always pressure to grow and pick up additional service load, so she will continue to make that business case as she has in the past.
You might note in the Main Estimates that, over some period of time, the size of the Public Service Commission in terms of dollars appears to have gone down because a number of their functions under the new Public Service Modernization Act and Public Service Employment Act have been transferred out, including the creation of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. That function was taken out of the activities of the Public Service Commission and will now appear in the Main Estimates of other organizations, including the new Canada Public Service Agency. The total function in terms of central human resources capacity has not gone down but simply is moved out of the Public Service Commission. They have had regular growth in their core activities over the last four or five years and, depending on how the Treasury Board, the government and Parliament consider her requests for additional cost recovery authority, you will see the gross spending authorities of the commission also go up. That much I can tell you from our viewpoint of being the Budget Office for the Treasury Board.
The Chair: My recollection is that Ms. Barrados indicated that authority was there the last two years or so to have some cost recovery from the deputy heads, and that authority was expiring or coming to an end. Are you aware of that situation, and is that authority likely to be extended? That figure was $20 million that she was bringing into her department.
Mr. Scott: Without committing what the Treasury Board may decide in the next few weeks, she recognizes that she needs to have that authority extended, and she is making a case through the Minister of Canadian Heritage to seek extension of that authority.
The Chair: That is not new. That is ongoing.
Mr. Scott: First she needs to regularize the authority that was given on a temporary basis two or three years ago. She then wants to extend that authority, because her service levels are going up. If she has an authority to spend $6 million and she has clients coming to the door with $9 million, she needs an authority from Parliament to spend that $9 million on those optional services. She also wants to expand the kinds of services she will have for cost recovery, and that arrangement is a different one. In both cases, she is looking at being able to accommodate deputy heads asking for these services by coming to the board and asking it to include in estimates an authority from Parliament to respend revenues: first of all, to make that authority more permanent, and secondly to expand the authority that currently exists.
The Chair: If approval from Treasury Board is given to the Main Estimates ahead of time, then would we see that authority in the department or agency?
Mr. Scott: No, you would see that in the Public Service Commission itself. The commission would have the authority to spend revenues, and the revenues would come from departments and agencies buying those services from PSC, except in the cases of mandatory service.
For example, the department must come to the Public Service Commission for official languages testing. That service is provided for free. We seek an appropriation from Parliament for those mandatory services.
For optional services, such as assessment of candidates for the executive cadre, the department pays on a per capita basis each time the department use those kinds of services. That is where the market is expanding.
The Chair: For clarity, we will not see in the Main Estimates this theoretical amount for any department or agency giving them authority to buy a service, and then they buy that service from the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Scott: You will see in the estimates an increase in their authority to spend revenue.
The Chair: Who is ``they'' in ``their authority?''
Mr. Scott: The Public Service Commission.
The Chair: It is not the department or agency that is buying the service from the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Scott: They are already buying these services now, and they are increasing their demand. There is an arrangement in that we inform Parliament and seek Parliament's authority to spend these revenues, and they are now reaching those limits. They need to come back to the board to increase those limits on re-spending, and you will see that next year in the Main Estimates.
They are also asking to expand the kinds of products they deliver. One thing Ms. Barrados has been doing, as reflected in her testimony, is borrowing money from her mandatory services to launch some of these new products, including online recruitment tools plus the training to show departments how to use these tools. However, that borrowing is temporary. She needs that money back for her audit and oversight capacity.
If she obtains authority from the board to spend revenue — departments buying those services from her — then she can reallocate those monies back into audit and oversight capacity.
The Chair: That was helpful. We appreciate you giving us that information.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have one question for Ms. Ramcharan. Ms. Barrados said far more visible minorities applied for jobs than were hired. I do not know what the percentage was, but it was substantially more.
I asked whether there was anything being done about the overt racism within the civil service in terms of the hiring policy. I wonder if you could respond to that. How do you help people along with a velvet glove?
Ms. Ramcharan: I know that Ms. Barrados has participated in a study that they call their drop-off study. They looked at people applying for public service jobs and those who were hired. They had statistics that were published in their last annual report, and one thing they are looking at is the reasons for that happening. I know that analysis is currently underway.
That information is on the hiring end and does not relate to the public servants within the public service, so she is currently looking at that one area.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When that study is complete, can you send a copy to us, please?
Senator Stratton: When will it be complete?
Ms. Ramcharan: It is not our study. I do not have the details of that.
Senator Ringuette: I think you partially answered this question when it was asked by Senator Chaput. Can you provide us the numbers with respect to the distribution of visible minorities in the workforce?
My next question is for both of you. What are your relationships with the Canada School of Public Service? The school is there for training purposes.
Ms. Ramcharan: From our perspective, we look to the school to provide training to public servants. They provide leadership as well as specialized training, whether for human resource or financial professionals, and they have courses for employment equity. They call those courses diversity, leadership and action.
We work with the school to make sure that the curriculum reflects the current policies of the public service, and we make sure that the training they are providing is relevant to the people attending. They are very much the organization that is providing the learning delivery to public servants within the public service. That is our relationship.
For example, one conference I mentioned that we are working towards targeting with managers, we work directly with the Canada School of Public Service to put on that conference. They are very much our partner in terms of helping us find the venues and having access to managers to provide that information and service.
The Chair: There has been interest in the National Area of Selection. You indicated some background in that, Mr. Danagher and Mr. Scott, in terms of the travel policy. We have heard that the initiative is moving but not moving as quickly because of costs and other things. Could you give us the benefit of your insight on that subject?
Mr. Danagher: My reading of what Ms. Barrados talked about in terms of the pace of the implementation of National Area of Selection is that she pointed more to the capacity in the HR world within government as opposed to necessarily the costs. My understanding is that she was pointing to the burden on departments for having to screen out a large number of candidates, or the perceived burden of that. Perhaps they had not implemented the tools to allow them to do that in an expeditious way.
To an extent, our involvement with the Public Service Commission directly on the National Area of Selection has been around providing departments direction on how to interpret the travel directive so they had clarity about the application of policies for candidates from across the country.
Essentially, it has been clarified that the travel directive does apply. It is a typical thing that one often puts in contracts, and that is that traveller status can be designated to candidates who must travel for an interview or selection process. At the department's discretion, those costs can be reimbursed in accordance to the rates established by the Treasury Board from time to time.
The tool is a way of ensuring that there is some probity used in the expense and the management of expenses. It is more of an expenditure management issue than it is one of a policy issue. The departments now have clarity that they can essentially apply that directive and treat candidates as travellers.
The Chair: In terms of supplying potential candidates to a department or agency for a position, will that be done centrally? If so, how do you see this unfolding, or will each department and agency ultimately do its own National Area of Selection?
Mr. Danagher: That is what is happening now. That is my understanding. I am not speaking from an authoritative perspective but, as my colleague, Mr. Scott, spoke about, as an operational manager as well. We do wear many hats.
When we do competitions that are for a National Area of Selection, they are our own competitions. They are not necessarily central. They can be, but they can be department-by-department or manager-by-manager. They can be wide open for big intake, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs would do for foreign service, or it could be something as simple as a senior position that I am competing externally for.
The Chair: Who sets the policy and the standards that the deputy ministers are to follow for their department or agency in relation to employment equity, for example? Their standards are set across the public service for everybody. Who sets them?
Mr. Danagher: For employment equity?
Ms. Ramcharan: With regards to standards, it comes down to the workforce availability rates. In the revised policy, deputy ministers will be more accountable for meeting their representation rates. As a manager, they will need appropriate planning and knowledge of what is needed within the organization and they will be able to say, ``Do I use employment equity as one of my organizational needs to achieve my workforce availability?''
The Chair: The audit of whether the standard had been met was done by the department of Ms. Barrados?
Ms. Ramcharan: With regards to whether or not they achieve the standard?
The Chair: Whether they have applied the standards.
Ms. Ramcharan: With regards to recruitment, absolutely. With regards to current representation within the federal public service, we in the agency, through the management accountability process, look at what departments are doing and how well they are represented. Therefore, we make an assessment on a year-over-year basis with regards to looking at what they are doing with representation.
The Chair: You referred to a renewal process.
Ms. Ramcharan: The public service renewal?
The Chair: Yes, can you explain what that process entails and who is participating in it?
Ms. Ramcharan: The public service renewal is an initiative of the Clerk of the Privy Council. A deputy minister's subcommittee looks at public service renewal, and it is implicated across the public service. All departments and agencies are involved in that renewal process, and it was mentioned in the clerk's last annual report to Parliament. It is very his initiative. The agency supports him and human resources with regards to providing policy advice and operational support as it relates to public service renewal.
The Chair: That is helpful.
Senator Murray: A couple of things: Mr. Scott, I do not understand well enough or at all the process of charging various government departments for services, or products as you call them, that the Public Service Commission. Do they need to obtain authority from Treasury Board, the board or secretariat, or from cabinet?
Mr. Scott: They obtain authority from the Treasury Board, and the authority to re-spend is from Parliament.
Senator Murray: Does the board decide what products or services they can charge for?
Mr. Scott: The legislation directs the commission to undertake certain activities, and that class of activities has been determined as mandatory. The arrangement we have now is that those mandatory services are funded through appropriation. You cannot oblige someone, that is, have a monopoly and then corner the market and have departments pay for services. Things like psychological assessment services —
Senator Murray: Where are they covered in the legislation?
Mr. Scott: They are under the Public Service Employment Act.
Senator Murray: The commission may charge departments in respect of that category?
Mr. Scott: That is right. The services tend to be the optional ones. If they can make arrangement with the University of Calgary to do psychological assessments, then a deputy could rely on the university to do that testing.
Senator Murray: There is some competition.
Mr. Scott: The commission undertakes most of these activities. They have been providing the services for about 34 years.
Senator Murray: Who authorizes the size of the fee?
Mr. Scott: The fee is determined in cooperation with the Treasury Board.
Senator Murray: The commission is granted authority to charge a specific fee for a specific service?
Mr. Scott: An exacting stakeholder engagement and consultation is required before the fee is assessed.
Senator Murray: Stakeholder means the buying department, but it is still possible for the buying department to go to the University of Calgary?
Mr. Scott: That responsibility is the deputy's.
Senator Murray: Mr. Danagher, as executive director of labour relations and compensation operations, can you tell us how many collective agreements will expire in the next 12 months, and will be or are now under negotiation or renegotiation? Have any agreements expired and are being extended as we speak because an agreement has not been reached between the employer and the union, and have any agreements hurtled down that road beyond that point and are at, or near, conciliation, arbitration or strike?
Mr. Danagher: In the core public administration, we have 27 collective agreements typically, and it is our pleasure to negotiate them. We are currently in the position where 24 of them are in various parts of the negotiation process.
Senator Murray: That is, have or about to expire?
Mr. Danagher: No, Mr. Chair, typically what happens is negotiations start when the parties file their notice of intention to collectively bargain, and the clock starts ticking from there. The expiry of the collective agreement could be a year in the future. To some extent, the negotiations are underway while the current collective agreement remains in force. If those negotiations are protracted, and there is a certain scenario that the honourable senator laid out, it is possible they could be negotiating while their old collective agreement has essentially expired. In that case, the provisions of the old collective agreement remain in force.
Senator Murray: Yes, they are in force until negotiations are concluded. How many agreements are at various stages of negotiation?
Mr. Danagher: Twenty four.
Senator Murray: Are any agreements well beyond the expiry date? I suppose you do not want to speculate, but if the agreements have gone well beyond the expiry date, they may be headed for conciliation.
Mr. Danagher: You are right; I do not want to speculate on that situation.
Senator Murray: I should not have given him the opening.
Mr. Danagher: I would have made one on that issue.
Essentially, I cannot speak authoritatively. Collective bargaining is not something that reports directly to me, so I did not come prepared for that question. The question is an interesting one, and if you would like a follow up, I can provide that information to the clerk of the committee. We will not speculate as to where negotiations could go.
Senator Murray: I am going back a long time ago to the original legislation, back in the 1960s.
Mr. Danagher: I remember the legislation in 1967.
Senator Murray: Then you are older than you look. An option was given to the unions to sign up for arbitration or conciliation and possible strike. Are any unions still into arbitration, or do they all have the right to strike now?
Mr. Danagher: I cannot comment on the status of any of them in that regard. In some cases, they signal their intent after negotiations to go through conciliation to arbitration, so that situation frequently happens.
Senator Murray: Sometimes, unfortunately, we need to become involved, usually as a last resort through legislation and so forth. Will any possibly serious problems arise in the next 12 months?
Mr. Danagher: I cannot comment on that matter. We are not forecasting any. Our understanding is that things are cooperative, and I must leave the answer at that.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, it remains for me to thank you, Mr. Scott, Mr. Danagher and Ms. Ramcharan. We appreciate your coming to represent the Canada Public Service Agency and the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Our study has been, and continues to be, human resources management in the public service of Canada, and we are beginning to appreciate the breadth and the complexity within our many different government departments. You have helped us a bit in understanding that complexity.
We had interesting discussions towards the end. Thank you for coming here this evening and we look forward to talking to you further about the undertakings you have given to us. On some of the issues you were not able to help us with, if you could help us find the right person, it would be appreciated.
I will now suspend for one minute to allow our witnesses to pack up, and then, as the deputy chair suggested, for a short while we will discuss the areas we might like to touch on.
Colleagues, we will not be long. I propose that we look at the proposed budget that will take us to the end of this fiscal year. It is not long, but you can see comparisons. This committee does not spend a lot of money. The one year we spent significantly more was when we studied the accounting officer issue under the chairmanship of Senator Oliver.
Honourable senators, would you look at the budget proposal? We put in two or three items that you should be aware of. Breakfasts and dinners are not inexpensive.
I am aware of one conference at Queen's University that I will circulate to everyone, but I think we should leave that decision to the steering committee. If someone hears of a conference of value, they can make an application to the steering committee and the committee will consider it with our budget in mind.
Under professional services, research consultant and expert advisers are only requested if needed. We have put a figure in for those services in the past, but we did not need them. A decision to hire someone would be made if the steering committee felt it would be helpful. We put the figure in the budget rather than returning to the Senate to ask for it at a later stage.
Those are the only two things I thought I should bring to your attention, and neither of them is extraordinary. They were in last year's budget.
The total amount we are asking for is $57,980. Can I have a motion on the budget?
Senator Murray: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Murray has moved that the proposed budget for the rest of this fiscal year for this committee be accepted as presented.
All those in favour signify by saying ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Contrary minded, if any?
Abstentions?
The motion is carried unanimously.
The next step will be to submit this budget to Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Usually the chair and the deputy chair attend the committee meeting to defend it, if necessary.
The only other item of business is to discuss where we want to proceed from this group.
Senator Nancy Ruth: For clarification on the budget, under transportation and communication, air fare is $8,000 for two senators to go to a conference?
The Chair: We do not know what conferences we might attend. I said that I am aware of one conference at Queen's University that might be of interest, and I will circulate information on that conference. There may be others. Do not wait to hear from me.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The first feminist tax conference I find, I will send you the information.
The Chair: We will be interested in learning about it.
Back to where we would like to go with this public service administration matter, shall we have our clerk talk to these people now that they know what we are interested in and the type of questions we are asking?
Senator Stratton made the point, and I think he is right. I think they are a little embarrassed, as are we, and I think they will recommend the right people for us the next time.
Senator Murray: It is not for them to recommend. That should go right to the deputy minister. The deputy minister should designate persons to come to the parliamentary committee to answer the questions on the subjects that we have indicated an interest in; in my case, things like designation of bilingual positions.
The Chair: Do you want to make a list of these subjects?
Senator Murray: They are in last week's transcript. They include designation of bilingual positions and the issue of visible minorities and how those groups compare in the federal public service with provincial and municipal public services and with the private sector. Treasury Board or the agency must have that information, or they can get it, and they should have it. If they do not have it, they should obtain it for their own sake.
Finally, on the issue of casual and indeterminate positions and so on in the public service, what is the policy, criteria and guidelines for managers? What sort of economic or fiscal considerations are there in a general way? What is the whole philosophy of that hiring? I want to know whether I am right that this business of going from casual to indeterminate is, to some extent, a function of not wanting to go the probationary route. I think we should face those issues.
Senator Ringuette: A certain percentage of that hiring is to be expected, but the percentages are high. Ms. Barrados indicated it is 75 per cent. Furthermore, all these people who are hired as part time and on terms are not being hired through any kind of competition. That situation is an issue in itself.
The Chair: That situation will also make ineffective the national area of selection, because no one will hire on for a job in Ottawa.
Senator Ringuette: We are looking at 20 per cent of the yearly hiring.
The Chair: Who would leave home to come to Ottawa to work on a term basis? They want to know they will obtain a job. Who would leave another job?
Senator Ringuette: One wonders if it is not part of a strategy.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Stratton: I do not agree with that opinion.
Senator Chaput: She is only wondering.
Senator Stratton: I have limited experience, but I know two people, both females, who were hired in temporary positions for three, four or five years, and one seven years, before finally being hired for what we call permanent.
Senator Murray is right; it is an apprenticeship program. It is not in the policy manuals, but it happens.
The Chair: If it is good, why not talk about it?
Senator Stratton: It is good. They are both happy in their roles now. They are now suffering from an explosion in the scope of their work.
The Chair: Is there anything further? We will go to these three people plus the deputy minister at Treasury Board. We will hear from Ms. Ramcharan's boss, Ms. Ellis.
We will thank the three witnesses we heard to ensure that this confusion does not reflect poorly on them. It will be a while before we can put the report together.
Senator Chaput is our new member. We appreciate her joining the committee.
The committee adjourned.