Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 3 - Evidence - April 13, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. Thank you all very much for being here this morning.
[Translation]
This morning, we will continue our study of the Main Estimates 2010-2011, which were referred to our committee.
[English]
This committee has already had three meetings in relation to the Main Estimates for this year, and we will continue to examine them over the course of this fiscal year. This morning, we are pleased to welcome back to our committee Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, who has appeared before this committee regularly during her time in that position. We welcome you back this morning.
[Translation]
She is accompanied by Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President of Policy, and Richard Charlebois, Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch.
[English]
Madame Barrados, you have a few opening remarks, and then I am sure we will have an interesting discussion.
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss our Main Estimates and our Report on Plans and Priorities for the upcoming year. I will speak to you about our activities and budgets, and I would also like to discuss some of the challenges we face.
I am here today with Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Richard Charlebois, Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch.
In our Main Estimates for 2010-11, the Public Service Commission, PSC, is authorized to spend $99 million, compared to $91.8 million in 2009-10. This increase of $7.2 million is due mainly to the approved funding of $6.8 million, through supplementary estimates, for our electronic recruitment system, the Public Service Resourcing System. For 2010-11, that funding is included in the Main Estimates.
Our net planned spending for 2010-11 is lower than our forecast spending for 2009-10 by $9.2 million, largely due to the size of the carry forward and other adjustments. More detailed information can be found in the table that was distributed to you on that adjustment.
In addition, the PSC has an authority to recover up to $14 million of the costs of our counselling and assessment products and services provided to federal organizations.
As you know, the PSC participated in the horizontal review of human resources and, as a result, we have a permanent reduction of $4.6 million, beginning in 2009-10.
As we look to the future, the PSC faces additional pressures. Funding for the Public Service Resourcing System ends this year. This decrease is reflected in our 2011-12 and 2012-13 spending in our Report on Plans and Priorities. We are currently working with Treasury Board Secretariat and other departments to put in place a permanent funding mechanism to cover the cost of operating the system.
As expected, the restraint measures announced in Budget 2010 will have a further impact on our spending. Our operating budgets are frozen, and any salary increases established by collective agreements applying from the beginning of 2010-11 until the end of 2012-13 will be absorbed by the PSC. We estimate that this will mean an annual reduction of $1.2 million for the next three years, for a total baseline reduction of $3.6 million. In addition, the financial ceilings currently in effect for travel, hospitality and conferences will remain in place.
We are committed to streamlining our operations in order to manage within these limits and achieve these budget reductions. Also, under Budget 2010, strategic reviews will be maintained, and a review of administrative services and operations of government will be launched in order to improve their efficiency and eliminate duplication. We do not yet know the impact of these reviews.
[Translation]
Our strategic outcome, as set out in the Main Estimates, has remained constant — to provide Canadians with a highly competent, non-partisan and representative public service able to provide service in both official languages, in which appointments are based on the values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness.
In support of our strategic outcome, we have four main priorities.
First, we are conducting an assessment of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). A review of our appointment policy is well underway.
We have done a lot of work and consultations, especially on the issue of non-partisanship. We will be seeking the input of parliamentarians before finalizing our recommendations.
Our assessment will form part of the five-year legislative review of the Public Service Modernization Act, led by the Treasury Board Secretariat; we continue to work closely with them.
We plan to submit a report to Parliament on the results of our assessment in spring 2011.
Second, we continue to improve the quality of our oversight of staffing and non-partisanship. We are implementing the recommendations that resulted from a 2009 independent review of the PSC's oversight activities.
Third, we will continue to develop and deliver innovative staffing and assessment products and services for departments. We will maintain our ongoing support of public service renewal through our recruitment programs.
During our third year of expanded cost-recovery, we will continue to improve internal capacity and infrastructure.
And fourth, we will continue to focus on our own organization, to ensure our employees have rewarding work, are productive and have the opportunity to develop their skills and abilities. Several ongoing initiatives support this goal, including regular online employee surveys and our talent management program.
Our strategic outcome and priorities are supported by four program activities. We plan to spend $11.1 million on maintaining policy frameworks that support the integrity of our appointment processes and on managing, among other things, delegation agreements, priority administration and the political activities regime.
Our oversight activities include monitoring, audits and investigations; $22 million has been allocated here.
Our staffing and assessment services account for the largest portion of our spending — $42.7 million. In addition to our many services, this activity also covers the costs of operating a network of regional offices, managing the jobs.gc.ca website and running major recruitment programs, including post-secondary recruitment and the federal student work experience program.
The Personnel Psychology Centre also provides evaluation and assessment tools and services for recruitment, selection and development at all levels of the public service. Our centralized services and support systems generate economies of scale, and we offer those efficiencies to departments and agencies.
Finally, planned spending for internal services is $37 million. This covers all central services and systems in support of PSC programs, including finance, human resources and information technology. It also includes the offices of the president and commissioners, the library and internal audit. We have centralized other corporate support services within this program activity such as communications and parliamentary affairs, legal services and acquisition of office furniture and IT equipment.
[English]
I would now like to turn to some of the challenges in the public service that have implications for public service staffing. There is high interest in public service jobs, and given the current economic situation, this level of interest is expected to increase, while the number of federal job opportunities will likely decrease as departments implement Budget 2010.
The PSC is providing more and more of its counselling and assessment services on a cost-recovery basis. We have dedicated considerable effort to delivering services tailored to the specific needs of departments and agencies. We have some concern that uncertainty over future funding may slow down the use of PSC's services, with potential impact on our revenues and operations.
In the meantime, we will continue to invest in modernizing the Public Service Resourcing System and automating more tests, making them less labour intensive for the PSC and across the public service. We will also be promoting the value and quality of our services in helping managers achieve their HR goals.
With resource constraints and fewer opportunities in the public service, the need for vigilance and commitment to maintaining fair and transparent staffing will be even greater. The PSC raised a number of issues in its 2008-09 annual report, such as the time it takes to staff and non-partisanship.
It is also time to consider succession planning for the current commission. As such, I would like to see two new commissioners appointed to start staggering appointments and transition to the new commission. I would be pleased to elaborate on these issues in responses to your questions or at a future meeting.
Mr. Chair and honourable senators, the PSC is committed to excellence in its work on behalf of Parliament and Canadians. We have received clean audit opinions from the Auditor General the last four years, and we received strong ratings by Treasury Board on our Management Accountability Framework. We have a robust organization that has made significant progress in implementing the vision enshrined in the Public Service Employment Act, or PSEA.
As keeper of the values of merit and non-partisanship, the PSC has been given a special mandate by Parliament. On behalf of Parliament, we will use our resources to ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from a professional and non-partisan public service. We are happy to take your questions.
The Chair: I appreciate your giving us this overview. During our questions, if it becomes apparent that some of our honourable members might not appreciate the evolving role of the Public Service Commission of Canada as a result of the modernization of legislation, please work into your answer a bit of background in that regard. I think it is an important movement. The PSC was the hiring entity but has delegated that hiring obligation to the heads of departments, while you have become an oversight body to ensure the rules are being followed.
Before I go to my list of honourable senators, could you explain the numbers you provided at the beginning where you indicated that the electronic recruitment system is now part of the Main Estimates? Does that mean that number of approximately $6.8 million is not a one- or two-year requirement to implement the electronics but will be a continuing increase over your previous costs?
Ms. Barrados: We estimate the ongoing cost for that program is $6.8 million that we do not have, plus another $3 million from inside. We are talking about $9.2 million to run that program.
In comparing last year with this year, you show an increase in our budgets. That is because last year came through supplementary estimates. This year it is in the Main Estimates, but only for one year. The following year, next year, we do not have the arrangements for the funding at this point. However, I do have agreement in principle from a number of departments that they are willing to pay for it. I should be able to arrange internal funding within the government.
The Chair: Therefore, the fact that it appears once in the Main Estimates does not mean it will always appear in the Main Estimates.
Ms. Barrados: That is right. It is only in the Main Estimates for this current year.
The Chair: Thank you. In the next paragraph, you said that your net planned spending for 2010-11 is lower than your forecasted spending for last year by $9.2 million. Is that the figure you were just referring to, or is it coincidental that those two numbers are the same?
Ms. Barrados: That is a little bit coincidental. Looking at the balance of the spending, there are a couple of phenomena that affect the numbers when you look at what your expectations are and then what you actually end up spending. One of them is the amount of money you carry forward. Last year, we maximized on the carry forward, so we spent that money last year.
The Chair: Is that the 5 per cent of operating?
Ms. Barrados: That is right. This year we will not have that large a carry forward, so I will not have that much additional money. You do not have that number now because we do not know what it is yet.
In addition to that, we get additional adjustments from the Treasury Board for salary increases, which we will not get now. We get additional adjustments for pensions and severance. Those are the large kinds of things. Those we will continue to get, but they are a function of operations, the number of people who retire, and the severance requirements.
The Chair: You indicated there will be $9.2 million less this year. You also talked about the electronic recruitment system, which will be in only for one year — $6.8 million, or it might be a bit more to continue.
Do we add those two figures to determine how much less you will have than you traditionally have had to function?
Ms. Barrados: Not quite. We do not have $6.8 million, and I am looking to get that from government departments. I will not have all of my $4.6 million carry forward, but I will have some carry forward. I will get some of the adjustments from Treasury Board, but I will not get the $1.5 million. I am less the $1.5 million and the $6.8 million, and I will also be less the strategic review that we have been putting in, which is about $1.5 million. There is an amount less that I have, but it will not be less $9.2 million.
The Chair: With that background, honourable senators, I will go to our list.
Senator Gerstein: Ms. Barrados, it is always a pleasure to have you before this committee.
In looking at your annual report this year, I noticed you indicated as an issue of concern the employment equity issue. You indicated that the appointment rates from externally advertised processes are greater than the respective workforce availability. Yet in the same report, you mention that the core values of merit and non-partisanship are generally being respected across the public service.
Recognizing the importance of representation and merit, could you give us some indication of how you reconcile these two issues?
Ms. Barrados: The first statement I make about generally being respected is that I try to get an impression of whether Canadians and parliamentarians should be alarmed at how the public service is operating. I do not feel there is a feeling of alarm. There are a number of issues I am concerned about that require constant vigilance. It is an important organization central to how we operate as a country. We always have to be watchful.
With respect to representativeness, we have a problem with numbers, as I have explained to this committee before. We are not good at knowing what our population looks at. I can give better numbers about the flow of people coming into the public service. We have done quite well with the four employment equity groups. Visible minorities have been coming into the public service at a higher rate than their workforce availability. We have done well with Aboriginals and women. We have not done well with the disabled. We are not bringing in the proportion you might expect.
Senator Gerstein: Your comment about women leads me to an article I saw in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday. I was quite surprised and delighted to see the title, "Women grab reins of power in PS." There were many favourable statistics. Would that lead you to conclude that perhaps we are at the stage where we could reconsider whether women require consideration for special treatment under employment equity legislation?
Ms. Barrados: That is a fair question, and this should be taken up by members of Parliament.
Women have not quite grabbed the reigns of the executive group; they are 40 per cent of that group. They are not there in the scientific groups. However, overall, women are over 50 per cent of the public service.
With the special programs we have put in place for hiring and for employment equity, we do not hire women much through those provisions. We focus on the other three groups.
The Chair: Senator Downe is filling in today for Senator Poulin.
Senator Downe: It is nice to be back on this committee, which I served on for many years.
In December 2008, you announced changes to the public service that would give appointment priority in the federal public service to the spouses and partners of members of the Canadian military and the RCMP who were killed in the line of duty. I wrote to you following that announcement in July 2009 asking for an update. You were kind enough to write back on July 21, 2009, indicating that you anticipated the appointment priority would come into force late that fall. I wrote to you in December 2009 asking for a further update.
That has not been implemented. When will it be implemented, and what is the delay?
Ms. Barrados: We are doing this through regulatory change. In making any regulatory change, I have a long process to follow. It is not a lack of willingness on our part to make the change, but it has not been a priority for the people doing the Department of Justice regulatory review. Following your last letter, I have been assured that it is close.
Mr. Lemaire, you are responsible for that area. Have you any further update?
Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: The latest news is that the new regulations have been printed in the Canada Gazette, which means we are close to having them in force.
The Chair: Have they been printed in the Canada Gazette or are they ready to go?
Mr. Lemaire: They are ready to go.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that news. I am disappointed, however, that it took so long.
Regarding your comment that it was not a priority for someone in the system, for whom in the Government of Canada was it not a priority to provide an opportunity for employment in the federal public service to the spouses and partners of Canadians killed serving their country?
Ms. Barrados: It has certainly been important for me. I announced it before I had the regulatory requirements done. Mr. Lemaire knows more about the regulatory process. We have to follow the steps of regulatory review. My understanding is that it was in the regulatory review process in the Department of Justice that it was on a slower track.
Senator Downe: We can follow up on that with the Department of Justice. Given the delay, will the provisions be retroactive to December 2008?
Mr. Lemaire: I cannot remember exactly, but it will be retroactive prior to 2008. We made the date around the Afghan interventions.
Ms. Barrados: It is the beginning of the Afghanistan interventions. I will come back to the committee with the date. I believe we are around 2000 or 2002.
Senator Downe: The good news is that when these items are printed in the Canada Gazette, anyone who had a spouse killed prior to December 2008 would be entitled. You talked in your article of December 2008 about a two-year timeline. Is it correct that you do not start counting that two years until these items are printed in the Canada Gazette?
Ms. Barrados: We have said that eligibility will be from 2001. The idea would be that those eligible would declare. Once they have declared, they have a two-year timeline.
Senator Murray: Ms. Barrados, you talk about succession planning at the commission. When were you appointed, and when does your term expire?
Ms. Barrados: I was appointed in November 2003. My position was interim for a period of time, then I was appointed permanently on May 20, 2004. My two commissioners were appointed at the same time. The terms of all three of us in the commission will end at the same time, May 20, 2011.
Senator Murray: The other two commissioners are part time, are they not?
Ms. Barrados: That is correct.
Senator Murray: Do you understand why this or previous governments have not appointed other full-time commissioners? Do they not have the right to do that under the act?
Ms. Barrados: Commissioners are part time. One full-time commissioner is the president. The number of commissioners is unlimited. The act does not specify the number of commissioners. I have been trying for the last two years to have new commissioners appointed because I would like to see more staggering of the terms so that we have greater continuity in the commission. I have written a number of letters and have been told it was not a priority or perceived as urgent.
Senator Murray: With regard to the strategic and administrative reviews announced in the budget by the Minister of Finance, I assume from what you say in your statement that the Public Service Commission will be subject to those reviews like any other agency of government.
Ms. Barrados: That is correct.
Senator Murray: At what point will we be involved? You report to Parliament, not to the government.
Ms. Barrados: That is correct.
Senator Murray: Do you understand how Parliament will be involved in this process?
Ms. Barrados: That is a very good question. We have undergone the regular cycle of strategic reviews. I have been reporting to Parliament about the process and the amount of money coming from the budget. We have followed the same process as other government departments and agencies.
The announcement in the budget about the administrative review does not have a great deal of detail in it. My understanding is that the work on that has just started. A good question for members of Parliament is what that administrative review will encompass and what its real objectives are. Since we deal with human resources staffing and evaluation, that is a large part of the human resource management action. I expect some impact on us. Hopefully, we are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. As I say in my opening statement, I am not sure what the impact will be.
Senator Murray: An even better question, if I may say so, is the so-called five-year legislative review of the Public Service Modernization Act. Some of us were here when that went through. Refresh my memory. You said it is led by the Treasury Board Secretariat. A legislative review is by definition, I would think, to be conducted by parliamentarians. Do we have to wait for them to undertake this review? Do you have the provision before you?
Ms. Barrados: The act requires that the government initiate a statutory review within five years, and that is what has happened. I have been anxious to have that review started this year because I would like to see it done before the end of my term. The process will be that government will do the work; it will go through cabinet, and then it would come to Parliament. Obviously, it will be a parliamentary decision whether to accept or reject recommendations for any statutory changes.
We are working with the Treasury Board group that is working on this review, providing as much input as we can. The Auditor General has done an assessment of whether there is a readiness in the government to carry out this review, and I think her report is coming out soon. We are doing our own work, with the intention of coming to Parliament, on our view of how we have done on the legislation and whether there should be any legislative change. However, you are right, senator; it is a parliamentary decision.
Senator Murray: I have seen an article by Professor Tom Axworthy and Julie Burch in the March edition of Policy Options, entitled "Crisis in the Ontario and Federal Public Services." I want to try out a couple of things on you here.
They say that a survey of the federal and Ontario public services — I want to emphasize that — done by the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University found that 50 per cent of respondents, talking about two levels of government, report that they had been subject to undue political interference; and a bit later, over 50 per cent of respondents in the federal public service think their organization is performing better than it did when they started over a decade ago.
Does either of those findings strike a chord with you? Do they represent the reality that you know in the federal public service?
Ms. Barrados: I would say yes. Certainly in terms of the commitment the public service has regarding doing a good job and trying to make the public service better. Public servants have a positive sense in that regard, although they will always say they are being asked to do more with less, and they feel that kind of pressure on them.
Regarding the comment about some form of political interference, that is an area of concern to me. With our legislation, traditionally in the Public Service Commission, and in the past the Civil Service Commission, we have protected non-partisanship by controlling and making the appointments.
With the new legislation, we still have a responsibility in appointments and protecting the impartiality of the public service, but we also have a broader role regarding the conduct of public servants. We have been undertaking a number of discussions and consultations about what that means in today's environment. There is no doubt that there is a lack of clarity about the role of the young, keen and enthusiastic ministerial staff vis-à-vis the public service, and we have public servants who are new to their jobs and who are not that sure about what their respective roles are. There is some tension in the system regarding what the appropriate roles are of these two important bodies that are part of our system.
I am not surprised by that comment, but I believe it has more to do with day-to-day work.
Senator Murray: This is what the study authors say, actually, that interference is not as great a problem as understanding the relationship between civil servants and exempt staff. They go on to say that contrary to what many people believe, exempt staff are subject to all kinds of restraints. They mention that Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State — 2008 defines well the role of political assistants and contains explicit standards of ethical conduct, and so on and so forth.
Then the authors say — and I would ask you to comment on this quote:
The provision in the Lobbying Act that prohibits employment in lobbying activities for five years after leaving a ministerial office is too draconian. By limiting career opportunities for such a length of time, it dissuades many from becoming exempt political staff. A one-year prohibition is sufficient.
I will not put words in their mouths or on their pens, but my inference from that is that the system is not able to attract the calibre of people it should because of a draconian provision about lobbying activities after an exempt staffer has left.
Ms. Barrados: The five-year restriction applies not only to exempt staff but also to senior public servants and restricts what they can do after they leave. My personal view is that five years is too long.
Senator Murray: In both cases?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Murray: Is one year appropriate?
Ms. Barrados: I am not sure what the appropriate length of time is. I struggle with this because we make decisions about what kinds of jobs people who are very politically active can go back to and how long they have to be in a more neutral territory before they come back. We have often said one year, and in some circumstances we look at two years. There are conflict of interest guidance and different rules. It tends to be one or two years. I think five years is very long.
Senator Murray: I would like to raise two other matters that come up in this article, which I found quite interesting. One is the consultants. They are talking about the eHealth scandal in Ontario, if that is what it was, but I think they are drawing a more general conclusion here. They found that this eHealth business in Ontario was a key government priority. It was not implemented along the projected timeline due to a constant rotation of senior staff, but millions of dollars were spent on consultation to speed along this implementation. They say:
Going forward, both the Ontario and federal governments will likely be looking for areas to cut back on in order to reduce budget deficits. One good place to start would be to radically cut back on the use of outside consultants. A generation ago, departments had expertise in-house, and if consultants were employed, it would be to test out ideas already generated by the bureaucracy or to fix a short-term problem.
I think they are talking about both orders of government.
Today, there is an underground policy triangle of regular officials, consultants (often long-term and retired public servants) and lobbyists. Money spent on consultants would be better spent investing in civil service employees, not only to save on often outrageous consultant fees, but also to improve retention levels, as civil servants will see their employers investing in their skill development.
Then they quote Henry Mintzberg of McGill, who said, "A consultant is somebody who borrows your watch and tells you what time it is."
Ms. Barrados: Did you want me to comment on that?
Senator Murray: Of course.
Ms. Barrados: I think consultants have a role, so I do not want to make a critical comment about consultants. I think they can be very useful. What I am concerned about, however, is that you want to have a professional public service; you want that public service to have its continuity; you want it to understand what the requirements are. You do not want people working around security requirements, official languages requirements and due process requirements. If you are using consultants to avoid those requirements of the public service or to avoid having a regular public servant doing the job, then I think it is inappropriate. However, if you are using consultants to get that one-time advice that you will not use on an ongoing basis, I then I think the use is appropriate. However, I am concerned about substituting for regular employees. That is a concern with temporary help as well, and we are undertaking a study to get a handle on how much there is and how much really the substitution is for regular staffing.
Senator Murray: On one final matter, Mr. Axworthy and Ms. Burch are referring to the Colvin affair, the diplomat who came forward to discuss the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. The point they are making is that Mr. Colvin has been supported publicly by many former ambassadors but not by the secretary of the cabinet, who is supposed to be the official defender of the public service. Is that your perception of the role of secretary of the cabinet?
Just to add to it, it seems to me that in recent years we have come to refer to the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet as the de facto deputy minister to the Prime Minister and "head of the public service." I think that role or its articulation took place when the Progressive Conservatives were in office during the 1980s or 1990s. I do not know, but there seems to be some potential for a conflict of roles or of interests here. In any case, is he the official defender of the public service or are you?
Ms. Barrados: We have different roles. The legislation changed in the 1990s and did officially give the title "head of the public service" to the clerk. Therefore, the title is not used inappropriately. The clerk is the head of the public service.
Some academics, such as Peter Aucoin, have written about this involving conflicts, and there was some discussion around Gomery in terms of conflict. However, from my point of view, that is legislation, and he is the head of the public service.
My role is to be that independent voice to speak up when I think there is a problem in terms of the values in the public service that relate to all staffing and appointments. If anyone being hired or anyone being promoted or any move within the public service or any conduct on the part of an employee is viewed that it might compromise non-partisanship, then it is my role to speak, and I do not check with anyone. I would speak. I do not have any obligation to ministers.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Ms. Barrados, it is always a pleasure to see you. And I must tell you that with each passing year, my admiration for your work ethic and professionalism grows.
How many departments have submitted their human resources plans to you?
Ms. Barrados: We are now seeing a major improvement in terms of human resources planning. Every department has a plan. We are now doing more assessments of those plans, and every year we see an improvement. Over half of departments have planning strategies, but the largest departments still fall short in terms of staffing. They have plans, but the strategies are not targeted enough.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: The last time you were here, you mentioned to us that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, DFAIT, was in a particular human resource situation and that a special committee had been brought together to try to resolve the issue of a major lack of succession planning and permanent employee hiring within DFAIT. There was a joint committee; I think it was you and Treasury Board that were looking into this particular department.
Ms. Barrados: If I remember correctly, the Auditor General did an audit of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. One of her concerns in the audit was the lack of planning that department had, particularly with the demographics in the department and the kind of turnover that was expected.
DFAIT has done a lot of work in improving its planning. At the same time, it has gone through a number of reviews and strategic reviews. From our point of view, it has made progress. It has those plans, but we still worry about the specificity in the plans.
The department's focus has been, for a large part in the last few years, on Passport Canada and improving the service provided in passports. We have been working very closely with the people there to solve those issues, and they have solved their issues.
We have a review in place now. I do not know what my analyst's view is for this fiscal year as to how well DFAIT has improved those plans, but I believe what you are referring to is an audit by the Auditor General.
Senator Ringuette: Have you signed delegation agreements with all the departments?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, we have. There are 82 delegation agreements.
Under the legislation, the Public Service Commission is encouraged to delegate; we do not have to delegate. Under the system we have in place, the authorities rest with the Public Service Commission. If there is a big problem, it is my problem as well as the problem of the person to whom I delegate.
It is the only executive authority that is in the hands of an independent organization directly relating to Parliament. There are no others like that, so we are a unique organization that is exercising authority that is executive but for Parliament.
We have done this through formal delegations. I meet with the heads to whom I delegate every time there is a change and every time we sign a new one, to go through the details of the delegation agreement. We also do monitoring against the delegation agreement. The themes that come out of that form the messages in the annual report.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to cost recovery, in your recent reports you identified quite a high number of non-advertised appointments, something like 37 per cent, which is pretty high. My guess is that these non-advertised jobs were assigned to private agencies for recruitment or to other means, such as maybe bureaucratic patronage. I believe that in the review of appointments you conducted, 61 per cent did not meet merit or guiding values or the combination of both.
My first question is in regard to your cost-recovery scheme and a private agency's non-advertising-of-jobs scheme. Where would you stand in that regard? Is your cost higher than that of a private agency?
Ms. Barrados: Many of the services we provide, private agencies do not provide. Conversely, some of the services that the private agencies provide, we do not provide, so it is hard to make the comparison.
Senator Ringuette: Let us look at recruitment.
Ms. Barrados: I can talk to you about the case of Passport Canada. Passport Canada was looking to recruit officers who would process the applications as they were coming in while they were facing this huge shortage. Passport Canada did not want to touch it, so they went to private firms before they came to us.
I think we are in a unique position for that kind of volume of recruitment and with all the support and the infrastructure behind it. Similarly, with some of the expertise, such as language testing, and the competencies we have, I do not think there is a private firm one could compare us with. You could compare us in some of the executive appointments; I think it depends how you cost them. We certainly would not be more expensive. In fact, I think we would be quite a bit less expensive. However, you would have to cost the work that others would have to do.
I think it is a hard question, Senator Ringuette. I have trouble giving you a good answer, because I do not really see us as competing with the private sector; nor should we.
Senator Ringuette: No, but you just said yourself that DFAIT went to you after the private agency could not do the job.
Ms. Barrados: That is right.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, you are not the first option for various government departments, and that should be a cause for concern for every parliamentarian. Your agency has high qualifications to staff the different departments, and it is not being used by the different departments in order to do the necessary hiring. Therefore, they are bypassing your regulations removing regional barriers to hiring when they go to private agencies and through non-advertised jobs.
From my perspective, they are bypassing your highly regarded agency and the rules you have put in place because of possible legislation to remove those regional hiring barriers; they are bypassing that by going through private agencies in the Ottawa region, where the bulk of the public service is. Therefore, again, the young and qualified people from regions outside of the Ottawa area are being bypassed by the bureaucracy. If that is not bureaucratic patronage, I do not know what is.
Therefore, Madam Barrados, with the legislation I had put forth a few years ago and for which you brought in regulation, I said, "Okay, we will see what will happen with that." However, it has transpired that the bureaucracy is going through private agencies, bypassing your rules to remove geographic barriers. They are going to non-advertised jobs. I guess I will have to come back with legislation to ensure that all jobs are advertised and that there is no bureaucratic patronage included in the modern public service act.
Ms. Barrados: Thank you for the confidence in the Public Service Commission. I like to hear that.
This question can certainly be raised in the statutory review. We took an approach where we said that for these are large organizations we will go with the model where deputy heads of these organizations are delegated, so they have the authorities, and we will check. We are continuing to check. We do audits, monitoring and reviews of what is happening.
I think that is a good model in this environment. I do not think we should move back to having everything done by the commission. We set up a system in which it was optional whether a department came to the commission, with a few requirements for when it must come to the commission. For instance, you must post a job in the jobs website. There is no choice there. If you are advertising a job, you can advertise anywhere else, but it must also be on the www.jobs.gc.ca website, and you must use the priority system. We did not delegate those two things. It is a fair question when the statute is reviewed whether that was appropriate to the approach that we have taken.
We had discretion in the legislation to determine what a national area of selection should be and how we dealt with regional differences. Following the pressure from you, senator, and this committee, we have made it mandatory that for all external, advertised jobs that are longer than six months, there must be a national competition.
You are right, senator, that still about 30 per cent are unadvertised. In some cases, that is justified, but you will see in our audits that we complain on a regular basis that there is insufficient argumentation and justification for those unadvertised positions.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to have an unadvertised job if you are looking for someone who has a unique, technical set of skills — a PhD or an MD that you would get at Health Canada, for example. They are hard to get and hard to get at the salaries we pay. If you have looked and you cannot find anyone, I think you can get that person unadvertised. You do not want to close that option to managers so they can get that kind of person.
We have had some difficulties with how some of these things are done. If you were to put someone into a competition and that person is in a development program, that should be considered advertised. Some of them are unadvertised. If we have people coming in, as you said, very quickly and you are hiring your friend or someone you know from down the street, I am against that, and I have said that. I am monitoring that. I am coming back all the time with numbers, and I am pushing the system to improve on the numbers. I think there is some unhappiness about some of the pressure, but I have the parliamentary committees helping me to put this pressure on the system. I also think there is a willingness to try to do it better.
The five-year statutory review is an opportunity for you to look again to make sure you are satisfied with how that is being carried out.
Senator Ringuette: Your previous answer to Senator Murray was that it might be another two years before Parliament has one.
Senator Murray: You will still be here.
Senator Ringuette: I will still be here, but I find that two more years without the removal of those geographic barriers to recruitment through private agencies in the Ottawa-Gatineau area is not right. Five years ago I put forth that bill, and because of your efforts, I did not put it forth in the last two years. However, that was just to see how the system would work with your mandatory rules, but it is not working. Departments are bypassing your agency to not take into consideration the removal of those geographic barriers.
Ms. Barrados: If a department goes to a private sector agency to recruit an executive or asks an organization to search for someone, it still has to advertise that on the www.jobs.gc.ca website. However, the agency can do other kinds of advertising as well. There is a proportion of unadvertised, so I am agreeing with you.
Another big issue for me is the temporary help. I am quite concerned about the growth in the temporary help and how that is used, because that is a National Capital Region phenomenon. It is not an issue outside the capital. We have undertaken quite an effort to quantify what that is, where it is concentrated and how much avoidance of the Public Service Employment Act there is.
Senator Ringuette: Are you currently auditing that issue?
Ms. Barrados: Yes. I should have a report this fall.
The Chair: We look forward to that.
Senator Marshall: Your 2008-09 annual report says in the opinion paragraph that the Public Service Commission of Canada:
. . . is concerned that there are early and important signs that added vigilance is required to ensure that Canadians continue to benefit from a merit-based, non-partisan public service in the years ahead.
As this is in the opinion part of your report, obviously you have quite significant concerns. Could you elaborate on that, and as well on the temporary workers, which we discussed previously; the indeterminate hires — I am not sure what they are although they are referenced quite often in the report; the use of private firms, which we have also discussed; and this phenomenon of placing employees in acting positions? While not specified in your report, when a person reads it, they can get the impression that the recruitment process is being circumvented by all these issues.
Ms. Barrados: I have worked with Senator Marshall in the past, and I am not surprised she focused on the opinion paragraph. One spends a lot of time worrying about the specific wording of the opinion paragraph. I will start with that and then address some of the other issues.
The legislation has changed and has given the Public Service Commission a role in ensuring proper conduct of public servants with respect to partisanship. We have instituted a number of things as part of this. We have regulations on how you go about running for political office; we monitor conduct; we receive complaints; and we do investigations.
However, I am not sure in the current environment whether we have that right. That is why we have been doing this consultation. I have that preoccupation because things have become a great deal more complicated following a Supreme Court decision that said public servants have a right to be politically active, but they must do it in such a way that they do not compromise the non-partisan nature of the public service. In the past, public servants had very few rights to be politically active. That was a much easier world. It is now a more complicated world because of that Supreme Court decision and the Charter of Rights. We are the body responsible for protecting all of that.
When I look at the landscape, we have had ongoing concerns about the relationship between ministerial staff, exempt staff and the public service. This includes the movement of exempt staff into the public service and how that occurs. We were concerned about people in exempt positions creating soft landing spots for themselves once their exempt positions ended.
Statutory change happened regarding the rights and entitlements of exempt staff, but we still have the whole phenomenon of unadvertised positions. We are looking at this movement. That is not to say you cannot go into the public service from an exempt staff position or vice versa, but it is moving without any process and using power and influence from one position to move into another that is a concern.
We have also been concerned about the movement from Governor-in-Council appointments, which come from a more politically influenced process, into the Public Service. We highlighted that in an audit.
We have also had instances of new recruits who really do not understand the role. We had the example of the young, bright, keen public servant who declared he was politically active as he went into the Privy Council Office. No one said anything to him. He posted a web page praising the leader of the opposition. This circulated to some friends, which was fine. However, it then went to other people who were not friends, and all of a sudden it became a big issue. People are using social media all the time and it is no longer a private conversation. There is a lack of understanding of what this implies. There was a lack of understanding too in the Privy Council Office, which was not being clear to public servants about their obligations and duties.
We see all these things happening. I do not think the approach is more rules. However, I worry about how we protect this institution that has served Canada so well and is important for our country. It was these warning signs that made us raise this concern in the opinion.
Senator Marshall: With regard to people moving from the political arena into the public service, it seems that the rules have changed. Based on what you said, perhaps the rules were relaxed too much.
Certain rules are in place at a given point in time. Who decides whether the rules are changed? Would that usually come from your office? Would you make recommendations that the rules be loosened, or if someone else makes that decision, are you in a position to recommend that the rules be tightened? I know the Public Service Commission is sort of an overseer that checks to ensure compliance with the rules. What is your involvement in changing the rules, making them stronger or weaker?
Ms. Barrados: Statutory rules, things in legislation, are clearly parliamentary responsibility. The Public Service Commission has regulatory powers. We can change the rules in any of our areas of responsibility as long as we do not do anything that does not respect the statute. Some other rules are those of the employer. We would try to encourage and influence the employer.
We have quite a bit of power to make rules if we feel it is necessary. However, I am reluctant to make rules unless I am absolutely convinced, because I think more rules is not necessarily the solution.
Senator Marshall: The opinion provided in your 2008-09 annual report indicates concerns in a number of areas. Is there an opportunity for you to tighten up the system by doing things yourself as opposed to requiring Parliament to get involved?
Ms. Barrados: I think there is. In discussions with Parliament and the departments, I try to identify the problem we have found and what we are doing about it. In some of the departments about which I have been most concerned, we put conditions on the delegations and removed some of the authorities or we require that they come to us to check before making some appointments.
However, regarding our limits in the non-partisan area, I think we must have a discussion in the five-year review. The definition of political activity is tied to support of a political party. I ask the question whether that is too narrow. That is a question for discussion.
I have said to some of the senators that I would like to have some more informal discussion with senators on what their views are on some of those issues. If you are active on a particular cause that may not be tied to a political party, is that political, and is it appropriate for a public servant? Is that something the commission should be concerned about, or are we talking about the duty of loyalty? These are the kinds of questions I am concerned about.
Senator Marshall: I am interested in the issues of temporary workers, the use of private firms and indeterminate hires. I am especially interested in the issue of employees acting in a position. I am interested in whether you see that as a means to circumvent the hiring process based on the merit principle. Based on your 2008-09 report, it seems that this problem has become rather pervasive. I would be interested in your comments on that and on what you could do to rectify that problem.
The Chair: Ms. Barrados, had you finished your reply to the earlier part of the question? Can you tie your reply all together now?
Ms. Barrados: I will summarize my reply. Because of our mandate, which gives us the responsibility to protect the staffing system and the impartial, non-partisan nature of the public service, we at the Public Service Commission of Canada are preoccupied with ensuring that we are continuing to protect an institution that is fundamentally important to Canada and how we operate. I think we can be very proud of our public service, and we have to protect that. If you lose ground there, it is very hard to get it back.
We put that statement in the opinion paragraph because of the changing circumstances and a number of issues that had come to our attention. We felt it was important that we have a good look and discussion of that. There must be more discussion, more communication and a greater understanding on the part of public servants about what their obligations are when they come into the public service. I do have questions about whether we have put too much of a limit in the statute, but I think that is for the five-year review.
On the other questions that were asked, "indeterminate hiring" is government speak for "permanent staff." I try not to use "indeterminate" and "determinate." Then there are "terms" and "casuals." "Indeterminate" is permanent hiring, and "determinate" tends to be a longer period of time. Casuals are for only 90 days.
Much of our focus is on permanent, indeterminate hires. We have been concerned, as is Senator Ringuette, about how people get to be permanent public servants. There is too much of a tendency to come in as a casual, which is 90 days and for which there is no merit criteria or process. You come in as a casual because of people you know. You get to know the system, and then you have a competition for a shorter term, not a permanent hire, where again you do not have the same kind of requirements. Terms of six months less a day do not have national area of selection. By that time, you get to know everyone and you know the job. Then there is a big process, and, guess what, the person who has been working there for all that time and who knows everyone and knows the job wins the job.
That is a concern for me. However, I do not believe we want to do something to the system such that we lock it down. There is a need for temporary workers and a need to get the job done. We have to balance these things.
You are right about the acting appointments. I have a concern about that as well. If you have an acting appointment, you have a 40 per cent chance of getting a promotion. If you are not in an acting appointment, you have a 6 per cent chance of getting a promotion. What is going on here? Managers are obviously making a judgment: I think Mr. Lemaire can do this job; I will give him the acting appointment.
There is some kind of assessment. However, other public servants are saying this is massively unfair. In this issue we are putting out the numbers and asking for less of this. We are asking for more direct permanent hiring, not going through this whole process.
I must say that the previous Clerk of the Privy Council, Kevin Lynch, agreed with this absolutely. He was tough and demanding on his executive. You saw a decline in the numbers, and that was because of his leadership. It requires a strong commitment from the leadership and the public service to operate this way. I am personally not convinced it is 100 per cent there.
My friend Sheila Fraser talks about having a nagging role, and I guess that is part of what we have to do in order to continue seeing improvement. The minute we do not see improvement, we have to make changes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. May I ask a follow-up question? I think a yes or no will suffice.
The Chair: I never like to put a witness in a yes-or-no position. Yes, you may ask the question.
Ms. Barrados, you may take as much time as you feel is necessary to answer.
Senator Marshall: I have not seen the 2009-10 report. I assume it is not out yet.
Ms. Barrados: That is right.
Senator Marshall: Can we anticipate a more favourable opinion this year?
Ms. Barrados: You remember when you were Auditor General; you would never give your opinion before you had finally done the report.
Senator Marshall: Yes, but I have to try.
The Chair: I guess you could say "no."
Ms. Barrados: I cannot say "no" to the question, or "yes." I will tell you in October.
Senator Marshall: I look forward to it. Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask about audits and reviews and so on, because you have talked about that. If you review or audit a department or agency and you find problems, how do you get that department or agency to carry through and fix the problems?
Ms. Barrados: I will take an example of an agency that we have been working with for a long time, the Canadian Space Agency. We did an audit of the organization and found all kinds of difficulties in how people there were managing their staffing. They also had the unfortunate problem of having a lot of turnover in the executive, which makes it harder to get things straightened out. We put conditions on our delegation agreement. Those conditions vary depending upon the circumstances. With the space agency, we said the agency could not hire anyone until it came to the commission to review with us how it would go about it. We wanted to make sure the agency was clear about its merit criteria and had a fair process. The agency would come to us and we would give an okay of approval, and it could do its hiring. In addition to that, the Canadian Space Agency cannot make any appointments to the executive category; we will do that.
We assigned people out of our Montreal office to work with the Canadian Space Agency. They worked with the agency for a couple of years, and we actually returned that authority. We felt that the agency had learned enough about how to conduct its processes. The agency has a very good and committed leader in Steve MacLean and is making good progress, so we returned that authority. To this point, we are still making the executive appointments. I will have a discussion with the head of the agency; it is now running its processes, but we are still making the appointments.
In the case of the RCMP civilian, we had all kinds of difficulties. We actually appointed one of our staff. A condition on the delegation is that one of our staff people works with them. I pay the salary, and one of our people works there.
Other organizations, where we think the problems are not that serious, have to do a more regular report. The Immigration and Refugee Board was a case where the head of the organization did not agree with us and felt that we were being unfair and that we did not have it right. We said fine. We are continuing to do work there. We will conclude at the end of this fall as to where we are and what we do next. I must say, we have seen a lot of improvement.
That is basically how we operate.
Senator Callbeck: You are reviewing the Public Service Commission Act right now. Do you have recommendations that you want to see put in the new act with regard to how you can have stronger tools in there?
Ms. Barrados: We will be coming forward with recommendations. I have a commission, so I have two part-time commissioners, and we meet once a month. We are taking the different sections of the act, different issues, and reviewing potential recommendations with them.
I will be sharing those recommendations obviously with the group working with the Secretary of the Treasury Board, but I am not sure whether they will accept them. We will have the conversation, but I will be coming forward to Parliament on my own with the recommendations.
If the government has accepted them all, I say that is great; I support them all. If there are additional things I want, then I will make those recommendations.
There will be agreement on some things. Some sections of the act got too prescriptive; and once you get too prescriptive on a piece of legislation, you end up with a problem.
I will give you an example. There is a requirement for informal discussions, which is a good idea, but the process that is described in the act is almost impossible to put in place if you run a big collective process. We made something that seemed like a good idea not work in a particular context. I think everyone will agree on that kind of change, but there will probably be some other changes on which there is not complete agreement.
Senator Callbeck: In your paper this morning, you mentioned the Federal Student Work Experience Program. We all know there are all kinds of summer students looking for work. Last year they certainly had problems, and I imagine the same thing will take place this year.
They fill out an application with the Public Service Commission, so they think they have applied to the government and their name will be considered for any job that comes up. However, my understanding is that roughly only 15 per cent of the students that are hired come through the PSC. Is that right?
Ms. Barrados: I will have to check that particular number. I do not think that is right, but I do not have the number off the top of my head. There are two student programs, which is why I think there might be something in what you are raising. One may be more applicable than the other.
For student hiring, we have had in the neighbourhood of 70,000 applications, and we hired 9,000. In addition to that, there are co-op and internships that get counted as students, so there are about 12,000 in total.
All those Federal Student Work Experience Program hires come through the commission, and you can only get them through the commission process. That does not stop any department from hiring someone as a casual or hiring someone unadvertised — Senator Ringuette's least favourite option — on a term. Therefore, there are other ways they can be hired.
However, if you are coming in as a student, you can only come through the Public Service Commission and through the automated process. We brought in about 9,000 last year. The government had put extra money in the budget for last year and this year.
That number is about 12,000, if you count the co-ops and internships. Co-ops and internships come through the departments, because the departments have the relationship with the programs and the universities.
There is also post-secondary recruitment. There we find that roughly half of the recent graduates hired come through our programs, and half come through departmental programs. We had over 90,000 applications this year, and I do not expect there will be more than 1,500 jobs.
Senator Ringuette: Do you mean 1,500 in comparison to 9,000?
Ms. Barrados: There are 9,000 summer students. This is post-secondary recruitment into permanent jobs.
Senator Ringuette: That is not a lot.
Ms. Barrados: No, it is not a lot. Last year, the clerk put a target of hiring 4,000. That target was achieved. A little more than half came through the Post-Secondary Recruitment program.
I am not so sure the numbers will be like that this coming year, but the rate of application is much higher because of the economic circumstance. That makes the issue of fairness and access to the public service even that much more important.
Senator Callbeck: Students who want a summer job would apply to the PSC. Then they should apply to a particular department as well if they are interested?
Ms. Barrados: I would really like students to apply to the PSC and do it through the Federal Student Work Experience Program. However, there are also ways of getting other types of employment with specific departments. My advice to young people is to apply to all of them and have the conversation with the particular department as well.
Senator Callbeck: In your brief this morning, you said that the PSC has the authority to recover up to $14 million of the costs of counselling and assessment products. Last year, I think you recovered $11.8 million; is that correct?
Ms. Barrados: It was $11.1 million.
Senator Callbeck: Would this freeze in the operating budget affect that figure?
Ms. Barrados: As I said in the opening statement, it is a concern, but it may be an opportunity as well. Departments now must streamline their administration. There will be a look for efficiencies in savings.
We will be a much more efficient place to go to than having that whole infrastructure in your own department. In that sense, it is an opportunity. We can provide you a service for only that service, and you would not need to have that whole infrastructure around it.
We have a group of deputies advising us on the service and making sure that we gear service in support of departments. In that respect, I think we have a tremendous opportunity.
On the other side, I think every department is trying to come to terms with what the freeze on operating budgets means. The freeze itself is not a big number the first year, but if you add it with strategic reviews — 5 per cent off — and a cumulative effect of the freeze, because it is not only the increases that might be negotiated from salaries but all other inflation types of costs that you face — and you certainly face them in the IT world, where those costs tend to go up and you have to take those and find the money — there will be some uncertainty as to how departments will manage that.
We have already seen the result of that. We have seen a slowing down on job postings. There has been a marked drop on job postings, but proportionally we are getting more applications. We already saw that starting before Christmas. There is less staffing going on outside.
Senator Runciman: You mentioned at the outset, regarding hiring across the country, that one of the areas where you perhaps have not met your own goals is in terms of the disabled. I raise this because a former employee of mine, who was a burn victim, applied for a federal job. He has great qualifications; he has a terrific personality and is a very capable guy. From both our points of view, he was unsuccessful. I can understand this because he worked for me for a number of years and I know he continues to have some health challenges.
I suspect it may be human nature when an employer looks at those kinds of issues. I am not sure how you can deal with that. I am curious about how you assess those kinds of situations and how you encourage employers to take a deeper look at these kinds of issues, especially as they apply to the disabled, which you clearly indicated continues to be a challenge.
Ms. Barrados: We have two kinds of numbers in the public service: the estimate of who we have in the whole population and the estimate of who is coming in. The estimate of what we have in the whole population is that the disabled population of public servants is reasonably representative, but that is because they are getting older. We hire them when they are not disabled, and they become disabled while they are at work. I do not think that really counts for giving opportunity to disabled Canadians.
We at the commission use our psychology assessment centre to help departments to modify and adapt assessments so that we can fairly assess a person's abilities and not have barriers in the assessment. I also am encouraging departments as much as possible to make that extra effort with the disabled because an organization the size of the Government of Canada can make those kinds of accommodations. A large number of people is not needed to get something that is representative. Once you have these employees in, they do a terrific job; they are very valuable employees.
We are doing as much to encourage people as we can, and we also have special provisions in the legislation, which we are encouraging people to use, that would allow employers to bring these people in much more easily.
Senator Runciman: Do you simply assess that on the basis of numbers? If someone has a concern about the treatment of an individual, is there a process in order to make that concern known?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, there is. They can go to us or to the Human Rights Commission.
Senator Runciman: Your emphasis on patronage is an issue I know Senator Ringuette and Senator Marshall mentioned. Maybe I am misreading this, but it seems to be focused primarily on the political patronage side of the coin. From my experience in Ontario, if you looked not that long ago at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the psychiatric hospitals, all those jobs had the blessing of the local MPP. Of course, that has all been done away with.
However, in the absence of that political side, we have seen the growth of bureaucratic patronage. When you look at the public service, especially at the national level, it seems to me that must be a potentially more significant concern than the political patronage, because we have seen a diminution of the number of jobs that are order-in-council appointments.
I guess I am wondering about your priorities. I am glad to have heard in your responses to Senators Marshall and Ringuette that this is an issue you recognize requires your attention. However, in terms of priorities, it strikes me from your comments here today that political patronage seems to rise above that as a concern of your office. Am I misreading that?
Ms. Barrados: We have a responsibility in both areas. We have a lot more experience with what I call favouritism in the staffing process. I am trying to be as balanced as I can be with my comments. Most of my organization is actually preoccupied with the application of merit, and fairness, access and transparency in the processes. However, we also have that other section of the act on non-partisanship, which has a new expansion to it than it had in the past.
The work we do is heavily on the staffing and the merit side, which are all those fairness questions. I feel more comfortable about where we are with that. Is it perfect? No. Are there things we have to do? Absolutely. We will be making some recommendations. I am actually worrying about bigger potential things that maybe we should be doing to make this a better system.
It is that non-partisanship side that I am not sure we have a good handle on. You hear me talking about it a little more sometimes in these forums because I just need an assurance that we are doing what we should be doing as the Public Service Commission because the institution is so very important.
Senator Runciman: Have you ever in the past five years determined that a particular position was filled for the wrong reasons? I am thinking primarily on the bureaucratic side. If so, what action has been taken to address that?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, we have. With our oversight responsibilities, we monitor, which is tracking the exercise of delegation agreements. We also do audits and have investigative powers. In those investigative powers, we follow due legal process. It can all be challenged through the courts, but we do remove people from their jobs. We do and have done so.
Senator Runciman: Okay. I will switch gears a bit. The largest budgetary item I think you talked about is $42.7 million for staffing and assessment services. Then you talked about restraint in hiring over the next couple of years.
I am curious about a couple of issues here related to this. What do you see happening over the next few years while we will be operating under restraint in terms of the turnover, particularly with retirements? Have you quantified that and the impact it will have on your budget?
Ms. Barrados: The departure rate overall tends to be around 5 per cent in the federal public service, but the pension incentive is there. Once people hit their combination of years of service and age, they tend to leave around age 57 or 58. They tend not to stay because of the pension incentive. Therefore, we have a 5 per cent departure, approximately. It varies a little from year to year, but about 3.2 per cent are retirements. We expect that rate of retirements to continue until about 2014. This is in my own organization and across the government.
The rate of retirements will be higher than if you maxed out what the operating review pressures will be. Therefore, there will still be a need to recruit. We have learned from the program review time that stopping recruitment at a particular time has terrible long-term consequences. It is important that we continue to recruit, but I would think it would be less than we have done in the past. We will continue to need to promote people in the public service because the retirements are much higher in the executive ranks.
That is happening in my own organization, and it is true across the government. I know it will give us the opportunity in my own organization to question the operations and deal with adjustments without having to do layoffs or workforce adjustments.
Senator Runciman: Have you adjusted the number for your budget planning for the next two or three fiscal years, or has it stayed constant?
Ms. Barrados: The Report on Plans and Priorities was done before the budget came out, so Treasury Board will be going through and adjusting these numbers centrally, which means there will be a reduction. For us, we estimate that will be a reduction of $1.2 million.
For the first year, I think most people will find that that part of it is manageable, but other things are coming. For example, our legal costs will be much higher because of the wage settlements in the Department of Justice. We will have to find the money to pay for those additional legal costs. We are a big user of legal services because our decisions are subject to judicial review, and we obviously need to have lawyers work on those.
We are now going through a process where we will try to estimate five years out to see what kind of adjustments we need to make in our operations. We will be looking for efficiencies and how we can streamline while maintaining the integrity of the institution.
In the near term, I think it is doable. In the longer term, I am not sure. I will be there for only another year; I simply want to ensure that for the new commission it is well in hand. The new commissioners might change their minds on how to do it, but I want to ensure they are in a good position.
Senator Runciman: By a longer term, are you speaking about beyond five years?
Ms. Barrados: I am looking at five years. Being of a certain age, you have seen the up and down cycles before. What will happen in five years? Canada will be thriving as a country. There will be real pressures on the labour force. All the demographics forecast labour force shortages. It is very important that the government make investments to get people in place in the near term. You will then need the Public Service Commission and its services more than ever five years down the road. Getting there is the challenge.
The Chair: Before the budget came out, you had done your Report on Plans and Priorities. You were anticipating a reduction year over year in the number of employees of approximately 75 or 72. If I understood your answer to Senator Runciman's question, that figure will grow. Is that correct?
Ms. Barrados: The reduction in the Report on Plans and Priorities is largely because it looked like we would not be operating that central recruitment system and we could not see funding that. It now looks like I will be funding that system. It means I will continue to have these people, although maybe a few less.
Reducing operating costs and decreasing the amount we use would result in a reduction of staff. I am fully confident that we can take care of it through normal attrition.
The Chair: Okay. Could you explain the internal services figure, which is a significant portion of your overall budget? It is approximately 35 per cent and increasing to 37 per cent.
Ms. Barrados: In trying to drive efficiencies, I have put everything under my internal services. For example, computer purchases come only through internal services. I do not allow programs to purchase their own computers. Furniture comes only through my corporate services group. I have also included my legal services and communications. Traditionally, one of my biggest-ticket items is IT services. They run $10 million to $12 million. We support the jobs website for the whole Government of Canada. Those systems are my big expense.
I benchmarked finance and human resources. We are benchmarking communications. I benchmarked against others, and we were on target.
The Chair: That helps to clarify what otherwise would appear to be a fairly large figure, maybe a little out of proportion to other departments.
Ms. Barrados: Yes. It is the way we have put everything together.
The Chair: You mentioned that you are generating rules as an authority that has the right to create regulations on employment, the delegation of that authority and how you want those who receive the delegation to act. You then commented that your other authority is with respect to an employer, and that you are in consultation in that regard.
Can you clarify the record with regard to whom you were referring to when you referred to "employer"?
Ms. Barrados: We hold the executive authority to make appointments. I indicated earlier that this is a unique authority we hold as a parliamentary body not reporting to a minister. The employer — the Treasury Board — is responsible for classification, pay, labour relations, pensions and other related policies. The big items are pay, classification and labour relations.
The Chair: That is the Treasury Board?
Ms. Barrados: The Chief Human Resources Officer is now with the Treasury Board.
Senator Finley: Thank you for your fascinating presentation. As a rookie parliamentarian, I found the discussion this morning quite absorbing.
My questions relate to a very nuts and bolts item regarding the public service resource system. My questions are in no particular order. You may respond in whatever order you prefer.
First, could you briefly describe the public service resource system for me as someone new? Second, you discussed the development of the system and money added to the supplementary estimates last year, which end next year. How much do you estimate as the ongoing operating cost, and what degree of confidence do you have that you can raise the necessary funds internally or from internal government sources? Third, what is the total investment so far in this particular system?
Ms. Barrados: The public service resource system is the jobs website. There is an application and a way to apply. An applicant does all that electronically. When I started at the commission, there was this nice electronic front piece, then people printed the application and they would send paper in boxes all over the place.
The system now has the capacity to maintain an electronic trail for the whole job process. You apply electronically. You can screen electronically. You can remove those candidates that you feel do not meet your criteria. You can input specific questions with which you can screen applicants. You can determine if the merit criteria are met. That can all be done electronically, including a link to testing.
You can communicate with the people who apply. Applicants can track where they are in the system. We have a discussion with the department about what kind of person they are looking for, how many applicants they want and what is important. We can screen applicants electronically and send them electronically the number of people they want.
Departments are still tending to print those applications, although it varies. This is our next step. It has to be more electronic throughout the process so that someone in the commission will know at least what is happening in the department.
We have that working for external applications. We do not have it working for internal processes. That is part of my resistance in getting it fully implemented, because now two systems are working. We have to integrate them. We are starting that work this year.
We have come a long way from having all paper. We will get to the total number of how much we spent on this. We have been working at this since 2001-02. Even before I started, they were doing pilot work.
Richard Charlebois, Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: Total expenditure by the end of this fiscal year will be about $61 million.
Ms. Barrados: That was commission money. Then over three years we had Treasury Board money for development and operating, and we have also made changes to the job website. Now, with the Treasury Board funding ending April 1, 2011, we are faced with having to have the ability to continue to operate and to do additional development. We estimate that the operating cost for the system for the whole government is about $5 million. Then we might get $1.8 million for additional development. The commission itself is putting in $2 million to $3 million, so we will contribute some of our money to this.
We have had meetings with a number of the deputies. Deputies want this system and are prepared to pay for it. I am now having discussions with Treasury Board about how we work all of this. I cannot say I have unanimous support, because everyone is feeling the budget crunch and is worried about money coming out of their budget. However, I have good support from many deputies. They want us to continue to operate the system and to operate it centrally, to make it available for them, and they are prepared to pay for it. We estimate that it would cost a large department about $300,000 a year, given our numbers. If they went to the private sector, it would cost them $1 million. It is a good deal. We will also, of course, put in place a governance structure to meet their needs. It meets our requirements in terms of what we want for staffing, but it meets departmental requirements.
Do I think we can get this done? I am quite optimistic. Senators who have heard me here before know that I tend to be a little on the optimistic side, but I have gotten good support from deputies, from the Treasury Board and from the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
Senator Ringuette: In the current Public Service Act that is under review, there is mention of political interference, but there is no mention of bureaucratic patronage. Will you recommend to the Treasury Board that that be included in the review of the act?
Ms. Barrados: I think the preoccupation with fairness covers it.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to auditing and the issue that was proposed by Senator Murray about the hiring of consultants, which was in the article, and with regard to our concern about the private hiring agencies, who is responsible for auditing the hiring agencies and the consultants with regard to value for money and how well that serves the taxpayers of Canada on a long-term basis? Is it your office or would it be the Auditor General, Ms. Fraser's office?
Ms. Barrados: The first responsibility is with the internal audit. Each deputy head, the managers of their operations, has a responsibility. Obviously, the Auditor General has a broad-based scope and can audit whatever she thinks is important.
We have a responsibility wherever we feel there is a conflict with our legislation. We are doing the work on temporary help and we are looking at issues of contracting, which you might not expect the Public Service Commission to look at, but I think it has an impact on the employment. If it has an impact on employment, we will do it.
Senator Downe: Since the Second World War, there has been a veterans preference in the public service. In 2005, the Public Service Commission expanded the priority list so that members of the military, the RCMP and the reserves who are released or discharged from service for medical reasons get the first opportunity to apply for public service jobs for which they are qualified.
I understand there is a problem, because, since we delegated the authority of hiring from the Public Service Commission to the deputy ministers, few departments are participating in this program. We have about a 60 per cent uptake. In other words, of the people who actually go on the priority lists, roughly 60 per cent are finding employment, in the statistics I saw. However, we could expand that greatly if more departments would participate.
I appreciate that you may not have the statistics. If you would be kind enough to send them to us, that would be helpful. My understanding is that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence are fully engaged; other departments not at all, in some cases, and very little in others. I think there is an opportunity here for these people to find employment if all the deputies would participate. Could you first send us the statistics, and then we might have follow-up questions.
Ms. Barrados: We will definitely send you the statistics. Everyone is required to participate in the priority system; it is not discretionary. Every job that is filled has to come to the commission. A clearance number must be given. That means that they have looked at the priority list and have determined whether there is someone who could meet the requirements of that job and do the job. We are now doing more work on how well the priority list is being used, because there is a tendency to say, "I do not think this person is qualified."
I will pursue ensuring that the priority list is being used with integrity. My people are telling me that a number of the people who come from the military and the RCMP do not have the kinds of skill sets that they are looking for in other parts of the public service.
Senator Murray: You mentioned your regulation-making authority. There is a legal formulation. Are they like any other regulations for the purpose of regulations and statutory instruments? Does the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations have a go at them?
Mr. Lemaire: Yes.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chair, you will probably recall this because you were the opposition spokesman on the Accountability Act. Someone will recall whether there is a provision in that act for a statutory review.
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Murray: There is. Do you feel it is appropriate for you to weigh in on those aspects of the Accountability Act that relate to the public service and to your responsibilities? In particular, do you think it will be appropriate for you to weigh in on the question of the five-year cooling-off period for public servants and exempt staff? I do not know whether or not I agree with you, but I think it is an area that we should have a good discussion on.
Ms. Barrados: I believe the five-year review for the Accountability Act is in 2012. My term ends in 2011, so personally I will have lots of views once I am retired; I will not feel particularly constrained by my office.
At the end of the discussions on the relationship between ministers' offices, exempt staff and the public service, if we come out feeling that there is an issue around getting the kind of staff that ministers are looking for and that is a function of the provisions in that legislation, I think we would be prepared to say something.
Senator Downe: In your earlier comments, you indicated that the Clerk of the Privy Council set a target of 4,000 employees, which was reached, but did you indicate that only 2,000 of those positions came through your hiring process?
Ms. Barrados: It was 1,700.
Senator Downe: The Clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the public service could have hired them all through the Public Service Commission but went another route?
Ms. Barrados: It was done by individual departments. Some of those hires were what we call student bridging; they are people who came through student programs and were then bridged into the public service. We did have a hand in that.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
Our time has now run out. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank you, Ms. Barrados, Mr. Lemaire and Mr. Charlebois, for having come today. We are fortunate to have a professional and capable public service. Much of the credit should go to you and your department. I hope you will take that message back to those in the Public Service Commission, with our appreciation of a job well done.
(The committee adjourned.)