Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 19 - Evidence - October 19, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:32 a.m. to examine the estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011 (topic: 2009-10 Annual Report).
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. I thank all honourable senators for being here this morning and continuing our work on the Main Estimates, which is the reference that we have.
[Translation]
The 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission of Canada, as well as nine audit reports and a study on the use of temporary help services were tabled in Parliament on October 5.
[English]
We are very pleased to welcome back a familiar face to this committee, Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada.
I want to point out to honourable senators that we have all received the nine reports of the Public Service Commission. We have received a summary from our Library of Parliament researchers to help us, but the annual report is part of these various nine reports of audits.
I would also like to let honourable senators know that we have in our audience today and looking on, a delegation from the People's Republic of China led by Zheng Silin.
Mr. Silin has been a mayor, a deputy governor and a governor of three different provinces. He serves on the foreign affairs committee of the National People's Congress in China, which is the equivalent of our national Parliament. We are very pleased that the delegation is here in Canada to help us celebrate the 40th anniversary of Canada-China relations. I suggested they might want to come and see a bit of our process, and we will have the chance to do likewise when we visit China.
Ms. Barrados is accompanied by Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Terry Hunt, Director General, Data Services and Analysis. We are fortunate to have the full meeting to spend with the president and her team. Without further adieu, honourable senators, I will call on Ms. Barrados to give us introductory remarks and then we will go to a question and answer period.
[Translation]
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I am here with Donald Lemaire, Senior Vice President, Policy Branch, and Terry Hunt, Director General, Audit and Data Services Branch, to discuss the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission of Canada, as well as nine audit reports, and a study on the use of temporary help services within the public service. They were all tabled in Parliament on October 5 2010.
The Public Service Commission is an independent agency accountable to Parliament for safeguarding the integrity of staffing and political impartiality within the public service. The PSC is independent of ministerial direction and holds executive authority for staffing. We report annually to Parliament on our activities and results.
The PSC's 2009-2010 Annual Report covers the fourth year of operation under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). As of March 2010, there were 84 organizations, representing over 216,045 individuals, to which the PSC had delegated its appointment authority.
In 2009-2010, the public service continued to grow but at a slower rate, 3.4 per cent compared to 4.5 per cent in 2008-2009. Appointment and staffing activities were also reduced.
Based on PSC's oversight activities in 2009-2010, significant progress has been made in implementing the PSEA over the past four years. The essential elements of the PSEA are in place, and there continues to be advances in achieving its objectives.
The core values of merit and non-partisanship, and the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness are generally being respected across the public service.
Still, more work needs to be done to ensure that managers fully understand how to apply the core and guiding values in their decisions.
Indeed, PSC noted that managers' behaviors suggest that the values, and their interconnections, are not yet sufficiently understood, and that staffing decisions are not yet sufficiently based on values.
We also find that there are persistent inconsistencies across organizations, in the implementation of the values-based approach, for instance in the use of advertised versus non-advertised appointment processes, and in the lack of documentation of decisions. A more concerted effort is needed from everyone in the public service to ensure a values- based approach to staffing.
[English]
This brings me to the issue of temporary help services and short-term hiring in the public service. They represent useful tools to address short-term needs such as temporary workload increases. PSEA, Public Service Employment Act, organizations spent approximately $300 million on temporary services in 2008-09, a threefold increase over the past decade, most of which occurred in the National Capital Region.
At the request of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in April 2009, the PSC, Public Service Commission, undertook a study on the use of temporary help in the public service. Our study found improper uses of temporary help contracting to address long-term staffing needs. Managers are given little guidance on how to consider the PSEA when using temporary help. The result of the pattern of usage observed was a circumvention of the PSEA.
We also found that about one in five temporary workers was employed in the public service following their contract, with the majority appointed to permanent positions. The PSC will consult with the Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services Canada to address issues raised in the study, and to provide guidance to deputy heads on the appropriate use of this mechanism in relationship to the PSEA.
Another area of concern is time to staff. While there has been a notable reduction in time to staff collective advertised processes, from 27.4 weeks in 2007-08 to 24.7 weeks in 2008-09, the average time to staff indeterminate or permanent advertised positions has remained relatively stable, around 23 weeks. Time to staff a position can be significantly reduced within the existing PSEA framework and policies without compromising our staffing values. Our research has shown that further efficiencies can be achieved through strong HR planning and project management. We are encouraging organizations to be more aggressive in addressing time to staff, including establishing benchmarks.
I will now turn to our audit reports. The PSC identified three recurring themes in these audits: first, appointment decisions not always being fully documented; second, poor rationales being used for non-advertised appointment processes; and third, the ongoing need to improve quality control on appointment processes.
As a result of our audit, we have imposed additional conditions on the delegation of staffing authorities at the National Parole Board. The National Parole Board has provided us with an action plan that outlines how the organization will respond to the audit recommendations. The chairperson of the board will also be required to provide us with semi-annual reports on progress made against the action plan.
As a result of its follow-up audit, the PSC has removed conditions it had placed upon the Canadian Space Agency following its 2006 audit. No additional conditions have been placed on any other entities audited by the PSC this year. Mr. Chair, this committee has had a particular interest in the national area of selection policy. The PSC is committed to making federal employment opportunities available to all Canadians regardless of where they are located. In the National Capital Region, for example, we have seen an increased rate of applications from outside the NCR as well as a higher rate of appointments of those applicants for both officer-and non-officer-level jobs in the NCR. This means that the national area of selection policy is having a positive impact and helping to improve access to public service jobs for Canadians.
I would like to turn to the subject of employment equity and the progress made with respect to the recruitment of four designated groups. Three of these groups — women, visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples — are now being appointed to the public service at a proportion exceeding their workforce availability. We continue to see increased hiring of visible minorities. They account for 21.2 per cent of external appointments, up from 18.8 per cent the previous year. Persons with disabilities remain the one group where the share of appointments is below their workforce availability.
[Translation]
Looking forward, we know this is a critical time for Canada's public service, and for the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). There are early signs indicating that the rate of growth of the public service and staffing activities will be further reduced in the coming months.
Targeted HR plans, including succession planning and talent management, will be increasingly valuable tools for managers as they seek to hire the right people within available budgets.
We have seen progress in key areas of concern, and the system has consistently demonstrated an ability to learn, respond and adapt to change. The PSC will continue to support departments and agencies to become more efficient by providing innovative services, tools and technologies.
[English]
We are also moving forward with a preliminary assessment of the Public Service Employment Act. We will be providing parliamentarians with a spring report that will assess the effectiveness of the legislation and recommend areas for change. This assessment will contribute to the formal legislative review of the PSEA led by the President of Treasury Board.
Over the past 100 years, the PSC has played a crucial role in building and maintaining a professional, merit-based and non-partisan public service. We have been approached by a number of countries to share our expertise. I am particularly proud of our relationship with China. The Public Service Commission of Canada has had memoranda of understanding with China for nearly 20 years — first with the Personnel Department and currently with the Organization Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China — to pursue and exchange as well as enhance cooperation in areas of human resource management and public administration.
On September 28 the PSC was pleased to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Civil Service Council of Mongolia to share our experience and information with them. My mandate ends in May 2011 as do the mandates of the PSC's two part-time commissioners. I would like to thank the members of this committee for their interest in the federal public service and the work of the Public Service Commission of Canada. Thank you, and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Ms. Barrados, thank you very much for the comprehensive review of your various reports. A number of honourable senators wish to engage in discussions but I have one point for clarification, if you could. The term "agent of Parliament'' or "officer of Parliament'' is used somewhat loosely. You help parliamentarians to understand and to oversee what is happening in the public service. The Auditor General of Canada also fits into the category of helping parliamentarians. Are you involved in that hiring and engagement process at the front end? Certainly, there is a requirement for parliamentarians to approve the recommendation when it finally comes forward, but we are not involved in the process. Who is involved in that process leading up to the recommendation?
Ms. Barrados: In the case of the Governor-in-Council appointments, the Public Service Commission is not involved. In the case of the Auditor General, the Public Service Commission is not involved. As well, my organization is not involved in the recruitment process for my replacement.
However, in the case of the Auditor General, a selection firm has been engaged and they have consulted with me. As part of my position I have had many years of experience with the Auditor General. Also, I have been consulted by the Privy Council Office on my replacement.
The Chair: Does the Privy Council Office, PCO, direct the process?
Ms. Barrados: In both cases, the PCO is responsible for directing the process.
Senator Murray: Ms. Barrados, I will pick up on your status as an independent body. We know that there are other models in other jurisdictions. In the provinces, perhaps your counterpart would be effectively a deputy minister and there would be a minister of the public service. I do not know how well or badly that works in those other jurisdictions, but they seem to be content with it. From time to time there has been speculation around here that we might consider adopting that model, but we have not done so. However, our current model since early in the 20th century of an independent commission has evolved considerably, in particular over the last few years as I think of the use of delegation and so on.
You will go out the door in May 2011, I believe. I do not know whether this is your last hurrah but I see by your statement that you intend to bring in a spring report to evaluate the effectiveness of the Public Service Employment Act and recommend areas for change. Perhaps we will have you back before the committee prior to May 20, 2011 — the date of your retirement, I believe. One never knows what events may intervene between now and then.
Would you care to reflect a bit, in advance of your spring report, on how the situation has evolved and whether the various federal players are accepting and content with the model we have as it has evolved?
Ms. Barrados: Thank you for that question. I hope to be back with my report on our overall assessment. Whatever happens, a report will be prepared and left with Parliament, so there will be a record of that final analysis.
We have spent a fair bit of time looking at different models. Senator Murray is quite correct in saying that our provinces have different models. The U.K., Australia and New Zealand have been much more independent and have moved back and forth a little bit in getting closer into the executive. I feel that we have landed in a very good place. We went through a major modernization process in 2002-03 and decided that for the federal government to maintain a professional non-partisan public service, two things should happen: first, the authority should stay with the commission; and second, the commission should operate in a delegated model.
The model is one where the deputy ministers are responsible. They have all the tools. We have delegated almost everything. There are two things we have not delegated, but we have delegated almost everything, so it is a system based on delegation and oversight.
When I started at the commission there was still a lot of tension and discussion about what the commission should really be doing and the role it should be playing, and I feel we have reached a point where now I think we are working together. I hear no big challenges as to what we are doing. There is an acceptance of our role in overseeing and making comments, and my views are sought regularly by deputy committees.
On the federal level, Canada has landed in a good model where we do the protection that is essential for the public service because there is always a tendency to not maintain the excellence you have, but at the same time have stressed the importance for the senior managers in the public service to fully take on their management role.
Senator Murray: Okay. About the delegation, you mentioned in your statement that you imposed new conditions on the National Parole Board, and I see the comments about how they operate. It is somewhat of a disaster area in your audit. You have removed the conditions that had been imposed previously on the Canadian Space Agency. What other departments and agencies are operating under conditions that you have imposed upon their delegated authority?
Ms. Barrados: Some others are still operating under conditions, and they are listed in the annual report. Now it is a memory test as to whether I have the numbers right. The civilian side of the RCMP is one of the organizations. We also have imposed conditions on Health Canada and Infrastructure Canada. The nature of the conditions and the type of involvement that we have with the organizations really depend on their capacity to make changes and our assessment of how well they have taken the need for change on board.
In the case of Health Canada and Infrastructure Canada, we have asked for an additional report. In the case of the RCMP, we actually have assigned people to work with them because there was just less capacity to deal with the issues they had on the civilian side. We are not involved on the uniform side.
Senator Murray: I have the transcript of your appearance here from last April, and I would like to revisit a couple of things. Succession, you had hoped that because you and your two part-time commissioners are retiring on exactly the same date that the government might appoint a couple of other part-time commissioners so the terms could be staggered. I take it that has not happened?
Ms. Barrados: Unfortunately, that has not happened. I now have a commitment that I will get one additional part- time commissioner as soon as possible, so that is good. I hope it will be before May 20. As you know, the new legislation came into force; I served a period as interim for six months and then was named to the position, as were the two part-time commissioners at the same time, and I had tried to get other part-time commissioners, but it has not worked. It was not a priority nor was there a great deal of interest. Now there is a realization that the terms are all ending and we need to have the continuity in the work of the organization.
Senator Murray: Your statement says that your spring report will be on evaluating the progress, the success of the new act, and will feed into the legislative review that is being led by the President of the Treasury Board. Do you have any idea where that is at as we speak?
Ms. Barrados: We are working closely with them. We have been working on preoccupations that we have, areas where we feel the act is not working as well as it could be. Most of it is of a technical nature but important for the functioning of the public service. We have provided information on all the work we are doing. We have discussions with them. The commitment I have is that all of it is being seriously considered, and given the questions I have, I am quite comfortable it is.
Then there will be a recommendation to cabinet, so once it is in the cabinet process, obviously I am no longer involved with it. The idea would be to have a report come from the President of the Treasury Board in the third quarter and that we would follow. I do not expect that we will have big problems with what is recommended.
Senator Murray: Will this be public?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, it will be tabled in Parliament because there has to be a statutory review. I suspect I may not get everything I think should be in there.
Senator Murray: In April, we talked about the five-year restriction on what are generally called lobbying activities on public servants and also exempt staff after they have come off the government payroll. You were of the view that five years is too long and perhaps two years would be more appropriate. Is this one of the matters that you will be opining on again in your spring report?
Ms. Barrados: Probably not. I have not changed my views on that, but our report will deal specifically with the Public Service Employment Act. This was legislation brought in through the Federal Accountability Act, and that is not really my remit.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Barrados for appearing before us today. We very much value your experience, particularly with regards to the fourth annual commission's report.
Unless I am mistaken, you were interim president during the transition period between the former and the present enabling statute of the PSC. You experienced what I refer to as the transition period of the PSC's mandate based on its enabling statute.
Ms. Barrados: You are correct. I was appointed under the new Act when the old act was still in force. During my first 14 months of office, I was governed by the former act. My primary responsibility towards the commission was to manage the transition period; with my team, I was responsible for establishing the policies and tools required for the implementation of the new act.
Senator Poulin: Could you describe, based on your experience, the differences between what I refer to as the old system and the new one?
Ms. Barrados: First of all, in modifying the act, Parliament's goal was to define the meaning of merit. The former system contained a definition of the term but this definition had become more and more difficult to apply. It was an extremely complicated system, and the objective of the change was to define merit in simpler terms.
Second, the new system was to modify the recourse processes so as to provide managers with more efficient means to resolve issues in the work place.
Third, the most important change was the implementation of a different approach with a view to protect the public service against all forms of partisanship.
As well, the new act confirms that the Public Service Commission is an independent body and also provides a process whereby Parliament confirms the president's appointment.
Senator Poulin: Thank you. You added, as a fourth essential point, the role of the Public Service Commission. During your discussion with my colleague, Senator Murray, you insisted on delegation and protection. In concrete terms, how does the commission delegate and protect?
Ms. Barrados: For the PSC, his is an essential component, as the approach consists in really assigning responsibility for day-to-day management to the deputy ministers and the managers. We also provide information and a policy framework. The way that the work must be done is quite clearly stated, but it is based on values, and not set out in great detail.
We also have a formal delegation instrument. I meet with each deputy minister within the delegation process; the document is official, it is signed by both parties and for my part, I explain precisely what the process implies.
There is also an oversight system applicable to the staffing process, within each department. This system is based on the delegation instrument. We have an annual report and we also keep track of the numbers and other indicators.
Each deputy minister receives an annual report on the department's situation that also presents a summary of the government's situation as a whole. We have a global picture of the results of the oversight process.
Following this, we also have an audit system. We try to audit each department every five to seven years; our choice is really based on the level of risk.
Finally, we have an investigation procedure that allows us to examine the staffing process, so that when there is a problem with a specific process, we are able to correct it.
Senator Poulin: When you describe the PSC's new mandate, I somehow have the impression that you are describing an auditor general's role, with regards however to employment and staffing. Am I right?
Ms. Barrados: There are certain similarities but the most important difference between the PSC and the Auditor General is that PSC has staffing as well as executive authority. As such, PSC is responsible for every policy, for every branch. There is also, within the organization, a section responsible for services and PSC has the authority to introduce changes and corrective measures, to give orders to bring an end to delegations. The Auditor General authority is limited to the presentation of a report and recommendations. We have the authority to take corrective measures.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for all your good and continuing work.
I want to focus first on the temporary problem you are noting here, that in the last decade it has increased threefold. It is obviously causing you some concern. I read it in your report.
Why is this happening? Why do you think this is happening and what needs to be done to change it? There are good aspects of bringing in temporary people. There seems to be a negative connotation to the idea that they might be brought in and then eventually get into the permanent service. However, I am sure many people who hire them think this is a good way of trying them out. I know that creates some problems with the purity of the system that you would like to have. Maybe you could talk about why this is happening and what you think needs to be done about it.
Ms. Barrados: I am not sure exactly why it is happening. It is obviously happening because individual managers feel they have a need to have some people do some work for them. The idea behind temporary help is that you get people in for a short term to help you with meeting temporary needs and requirements. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I think it is important for managers to have the flexibility and ability to get someone for a short term.
There is a tendency to think of temporary help as administrative and support staff, so your administrative support is sick or on maternity leave and you get someone to come in and fill in during that time. However, it has evolved so that we are seeing temporary help now running around 37 per cent of our professional technical people who come. It is more than this notion we have of administrative support.
Again, it may be quite fine for a short-term professional technical person to come in. What concerns us is where you have employment relationships that are continuous. We see patterns of people being temporary help, then they might be casual for a while, then they are back to temporary help. It is an ongoing employment relationship. That is not how temporary help should be used, and that is not the intention. That is what we have the Public Service Employment Act for. Those kinds of cases should be coming through the Public Service Employment Act.
We also have cases of some very long periods that people are coming in as temporary help. Again, that is not the idea behind the use of temporary help. They should be coming through the Public Service Employment Act.
Why do I stress the Public Service Employment Act? I stress that because we have the regime that is set out by Parliament of what we should be looking for when we hire. We want entry into the public service to be fair, to give every Canadian a chance, to be representative of the whole country, regional and diverse.
What we see in the phenomenon of temporary help is that it is concentrated in the national capital area. That then means that your way into the public service is by working that system of temporary help and casual — one in five of them end up in the permanent public service — and these are now jobs that are denied to the rest of the country because of the method of recruitment.
I have no problem with temporary help for temporary help purposes. I have problems with temporary help if it is used as a recruitment vehicle because it works against all those other things that we value in the act.
I think managers have gotten a bit lazy, if I might say, about the notion of probation. There are provisions for probation under the current employment regime. You can hire someone and try them out, and if it does not work out you do not have to keep them. There are provisions under the Public Service Employment Act and the employer policies to have a process of trying and, if it does not work, letting people go. I find that this temporary help process works against a lot of the principles that we think are very important in the act.
Senator Eggleton: If it is that easy, on the basis of the probationary period, to let someone go, then why are they forgetting that and going this other route? It seems like a lot of them are using this as a basis to try someone out to see if they will work, and if they work they bring them in. It is natural instinct for these managers to do that. You are saying they have another avenue but, for some reason — threefold in a decade — they are not doing it. How do you get to the bottom of this?
Ms. Barrados: I do not think we need more rules and process. I think we have enough. People must better understand the tools available to them.
Part of the whole transition we have had with public service modernization is to get managers to really take on their role as managers — financial managers and HR managers. We are getting there. We have made a lot of progress. I am pleased at the progress that has been made. However, we are not there yet.
When I talk about values-based staffing, it sounds very conceptual, but it really means that managers have a comfort about the tools they are using and make their decisions in compliance with the act, but not using these shortcuts. We have a piece of legislation, and they should be using it. Tools are available to them. Maybe we have not done a good job of telling them and, as I mentioned before, we have kept a service side of our organization just to provide support. Maybe we should be doing more in that area. That is the kind of discussions I have with deputy ministers.
Two other things may have contributed to your question. One is that there was quite a bit of tightening up on executive interchange. Executive interchange was rather loosely used, and that was tightened up. The other was that new legislation tightened up the casual period of employment. It went from 120 days to 90 days. You see the big growth with those two things having occurred — a tightening up on executive interchange and a tightening up on the casuals.
Senator Eggleton: Are these temporary positions also being used to justify a permanent position being created, or are they mainly people being tried out in permanent positions?
Ms. Barrados: One of the difficulties we had with this, and Mr. Hunt was responsible for this work, is that it is done by contract. The Public Service Employment Act and the notion of employment are all about positions. Here the process is contracting, and we actually had a great deal of difficulty getting to this. The standing committee in the house was concerned that we were taking so long. It was difficult to actually track this and get the names of people, because it is all based on contract. I am not sure whether it was used as a way to create positions. I assume there is meaningful work to do, so these people are gotten to do meaningful work, but it is not a position-based process.
Senator Eggleton: On employment equity, you note that those with disabilities are still not the numbers that you have been looking for. Why is that? First, are we talking people with physical as well as mental issues? Is one more problematic than the other? What are the barriers?
Ms. Barrados: We come up with these numbers when people apply. There is an electronic process of applying. They hit a screen and are asked to declare whether they are a member of three of the groups. Male/female is in another part of the questionnaire. They are asked to declare, so it is based on self-declaration.
The first question I have is: Are people really willing to declare that they have some kind of disability? People are not always willing to declare that they have a disability. The category is very broad, so it includes all kinds of disabilities. I wish that people would declare. We have an obligation in the government to accommodate them in their selection process. If they have hearing difficulties or visual difficulties or any kind of difficulties, we will ensure there is an accommodation in the selection process.
Senator Eggleton: Do they know, when they are asked this question, that the purpose behind it is so they can get additional assistance?
Ms. Barrados: It is one of the consequences. The purpose is to see how we are doing against the Employment Equity Act. We may not be clear enough on that.
Senator Eggleton: Maybe you need to do that.
Senator Poulin: May I ask a supplementary question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Poulin: On the issue of the appearance of a reluctance to declare a disability, has any study been done on that issue itself within the public service?
Ms. Barrados: No, there has not. This is something we are undertaking. I am hoping that my successor will take this one on and come up with the results.
We have two kinds of numbers. We have the flow into the public service, so the rate at which we are hiring people, and that is where I am saying this is lower than it should be. We are doing very well on visible minorities. I am very pleased about that. The other number we have is the picture of people in the public service, and there we are quite representative of the disabled. They may be more prepared to declare. I have a theory that it is an older public service and, as you get older, you tend to acquire some disabilities.
The Chair: Madam Barrados, to clarify the record, the Public Service Employment Act provides for an annual review by the President of the Treasury Board of the functioning of the act, but there is also a five-year review, and the wording is that the minister designate shall cause a review to take place. Was it that latter five-year review you were talking about earlier?
Ms. Barrados: That is correct.
The Chair: Normally, Parliament is involved in statutory reviews but, in this instance, your understanding is that the Treasury Board will be doing that review?
Ms. Barrados: No, my understanding is that the Treasury Board leads the review in government, and it will go through the cabinet process, but it will be presented to Parliament with recommendations for legislative change. It will be up to Parliament to determine what changes should be made and not made. It will be a parliamentary process.
The Chair: As a committee responsible for the functioning of the government and the machinery of government, we put in a lot of time and effort and have built up a lot of knowledge about the functioning of the public service, through your help in large part. The Public Service Employment Act was studied extensively by us. Honourable senators may want to reflect on that. We might want to talk about this review from a parliamentary point of view, from a lawmakers' point of view, before Madam Barrados gets away on us in the spring.
Ms. Barrados: I would be happy to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: Welcome, Madam Barrados. I want to continue on with the questioning of Senator Eggleton on the disabled. In your brief, you talk about three groups — women, visible minorities and Aboriginals — now being appointed at a proportion exceeding their workforce availability. Explain exactly what you mean by that.
Ms. Barrados: We get a number from the Treasury Board that is an estimate done with Statistics Canada and Labour Canada on how many people in the workforce are women, visible minorities, Aboriginal and disabled who can do government-type jobs. We look at our type of jobs. We look at what is out there in the labour force. There is then an estimate of what our pool is, if you like, of people of those designated groups. That becomes our workforce availability number. We then look at the flow of people in, and we compare it to the workforce availability number estimate to determine how well are we doing. On that basis, I am saying we are doing very well on visible minorities, and we have not been in the past, so this is real progress. We are not doing so well on the disabled.
It is particularly important in looking at the numbers of people coming in, because public servants tend to come in at the bottom of the pyramid and stay for their careers. That inflow number is telling you what your public service will look like for the next couple of generations.
Senator Callbeck: You say we are doing well on the visible minorities, and you give percentages here. I assume from that that the actual numbers are up. What about women and Aboriginal peoples?
Ms. Barrados: In those two cases, we are again bringing them in above the workforce availability, so the rate we are bringing them in is good. I have speculated on the issue on women before, and I think it was at this committee, and I got more attention than I really wanted. For the public service, I do not think we need to take special measures for women anymore. Women are very well represented in the public service and they are represented at the senior levels of the public service. It is not the case for women throughout in other sectors, but for the public service.
The issue of how well we are doing overall, what is the result of this inflow, is a difficult question to answer for the other groups, and that is because our statistics are not very good. This is one I think we have discussed before. The numbers are not so good, so we are showing that we are still under-represented for visible minorities.
We are about right for Aboriginals, but there are some other special issues there in terms of concentration, as to where they are located, and obligations that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has as a result of a settlement agreement.
Senator Callbeck: The actual numbers for women, visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples are going up, right?
Ms. Barrados: Right, entry in.
Senator Callbeck: What about the disabled — has the public service any plans that they are thinking about implementing? You mentioned about the definition being too broad.
Ms. Barrados: At this point, I have raised that in the report. I am saying this is an issue of concern to me. We have to do more work on this, and we do have to develop some plans as to how to make this more representative.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to go on to students.
The Federal Student Work Experience Program is open to students at college and university, and I see in here post- secondary. Is high school included there?
Ms. Barrados: They are eligible for that program.
Senator Callbeck: How is that program advertised? My concern is a high school in a rural area. Are the students as aware of that program as students in a high school in Ottawa?
Ms. Barrados: It is advertised on the jobs.gc.ca website. The limitation in it is if you have access to the Internet. We have a lot of interest in that program. Last year, we had 79,000 applicants through that program. It tends to be mostly post-secondary, but some secondary students do apply.
Senator Callbeck: That is the only way it is advertised, correct?
Ms. Barrados: Right.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have figures on that?
Ms. Barrados: On the number of people who apply? Yes, I do.
Senator Callbeck: What page is that on?
Terry Hunt, Director General, Data Services and Analysis, Public Service Commission of Canada: It is on page 126.
Ms. Barrados: It was 60,000 who applied. I have the breakdown on the number. On page 165, you see that we had 4,000 secondary students apply, 9,800 college students and 46,500 university students. It gives the breakdown by province of where the applications came from.
Senator Callbeck: When you look at Ontario and the National Capital Region, it is quite a difference.
Ms. Barrados: Yes. You tend to get this concentration in the National Capital Region because you have the head office people here. This is again my worry about ensuring that our public service draws from the entire country. The others tend to be proportional to population.
Senator Callbeck: I am not sure about that.
Ms. Barrados: We can do the calculations and come back to you.
Senator Callbeck: Okay.
I notice on page 126 on this program that the number hired last year actually decreased.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, and that is a phenomenon because the government, through the Economic Action Plan, put additional money into student programs, but student programs were allowed to come from both this — what we call FSWEP, the Federal Student Work Experience Program — and co-op programs. If you combine this with the co-op programs, the number did go up.
Senator Callbeck: On page 164, you have the number and distribution of applicants to this program, the post- secondary recruitment campaign, but you do not have the number hired by province — or I do not see it here.
Ms. Barrados: It is not there but we can give it to you.
Senator Callbeck: Okay, I would like to have that.
Again, on the recruitment program, how do students learn about that?
Ms. Barrados: We do a number of things. We rely on the Internet for this one a lot. This is one program people tend to know about. We do visit schools; we do job fairs in post-secondary institutions. We use a lot of opportunities, the Public Service Commission and departments, to provide as much information as we can about these jobs.
Senator Callbeck: You say you visit universities. Is that right across Canada? For example, in Prince Edward Island, would you be visiting the University of Prince Edward Island?
Ms. Barrados: We have. I would have to get back to you and tell you when we have been there. You have a concentration of public servants with Veterans Affairs Canada in Prince Edward Island, so there is quite a bit of interest and there is more going on in Prince Edward Island because you have that one department. Where there is much more of a challenge is where you do not have that many federal departments or that much federal activity, but we can come back to you on the specifics of that.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to know about that.
Senator Marshall: Welcome to you and your officials. It has been a very informative morning.
There was some discussion on the temporary help services and I appreciate your comments on that, but I also want to talk about the casuals that you had done some work on. Some of the statistics that you provided in your report were quite concerning in that they indicate that the use of casuals is increasing in percentage and also in total numbers. What I am reading in the report, probably between the lines, is that this has become a way to circumvent the act, and that many people employed as casuals end up as permanent employees of the public service.
Could you speak to that, and also speak to how this problem can be remedied, because the numbers are growing? I notice in one of the reports that you provided — Appendix 1 in the report called Casual employment: Sources and practices — on page 19 it gives total numbers as to new indeterminate employees with prior experience as casual workers. The numbers are alarming because they indicate that, over the past nine years, tens of thousands of people have come into the public service initially through the casual employment route.
Could you speak to that because it does appear to be a big problem, and also how can this trend be remedied?
Ms. Barrados: It is a problem. The idea behind having casual employment is a good idea. You want public servants' managers to be able to hire someone for short-term and immediate needs, so that is a good thing. You can have unexpected events and unexpected things happen. The restriction we have in the act is you can hire casual; there is no process around it for 90 days and only 90 days, but 90 days in one department. You can go to another department for 90 days.
I have two views on that. One is we have made it very strict, and maybe that is too strict. There is no way to add flexibility, and I will give you an example. When we had H1N1, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, needed to use casual employment as a way to bring in people to help them through a potential crisis, but could do so for only 90 days, after which the PHAC could not keep them. They had no way to keep them as casual employees. It is an important distinction because of the way in which the benefits and the rights and entitlements flow. In the end, I had said to the head of the PHAC that I would employ them at the commission because the terms were too rigid. We have that issue, which is not quite your question.
The idea was good because it is a good thing to have casual employment. However, it worries me a lot because it has become the recruitment mechanism, which is much like the question asked by Senator Eggleton about temporary help. It is a big concern. What is the process? How does it work? You tend to know people where you live and those who are like you. You bring them in because you need people to work for you. Then they have the opportunity to learn all about government and how it works — it is a special place. I love working there, but there is a lot to learn about the processes. When a competition then comes up, guess who has a leg up on the competition? It is the person who has had the opportunity to have this learning.
The question is: How do we get around this? First, I truly want people to do a better job on their planning and plan their workforce. How many casual workers do you think you will need? Let people know that you are hiring casual, but that it is truly casual and not an entry route to permanent employment. Let people know they will be employed short term and then will be gone. That is the situation. Some departments do this quite well such that they know their seasonal needs and get people in for those times.
If you plan to use casual employees as a way to recruit, then you have to do it more like the student program whereby you say that you are hiring so many casual employees who will have an opportunity to move into the public service. You will need some kind of process to create a pool of people to broaden the opportunity; otherwise, it is not fair. The last number shows that about 50 per cent of them end up in the public service. It is much more an Ottawa phenomenon.
Senator Marshall: The interesting thing about your report is that you are tracking over the years and watching what evolves in the public service. You are saying that from 1995 to 2005, an average of 41 per cent of the new casual hires ended up in the public service and that between 2001 and 2008, it was almost 50 per cent. My province is Newfoundland and Labrador. You spoke earlier to temporary help services. Is the tendency to hire people in the National Capital Region one of the results of it?
How will this issue be addressed and resolved, because the numbers are moving in the wrong direction? We have gone from 41 per cent to 48 per cent. Unless we do something, the next number will be over 50 per cent. It is quite a concern to see that this is how staffing in the public service is evolving.
Ms. Barrados: Yes. Three main things can be done immediately. First, workforce planning must be sharpened up a lot. It is important that managers have discretion in organizations, but it has to be lined up with where you want the organization to go. The public service is currently under a lot of restrictions that they have to manage their way through. They have operational budget freezes and strategic reviews. Money is coming out of budget, so this has to be managed.
Second, the time to staff is taking far too long, which really is not necessary.
Senator Murray: It takes 23 weeks, it says here.
Ms. Barrados: That is on average, which is totally unnecessary.
Senator Murray: And this is since delegation became the norm.
Ms. Barrados: Third, I suggest in the report that departments set benchmarks and manage to benchmarks. It is not rocket science. It is like managing your project. You set a start point, tell people the steps, how much time you will give on each step, and you do it. You make it a priority.
If you are committed to sit on an interview board, you show up and you are on the interview board. We have to do that and reduce the time it takes to staff. As part of that, we at the commission are doing more things like creating pools of clerks and administrative assistants, which are the high-volume jobs. Why would you have 600 separate processes for this? Why not have one process, create a large pool, and then draw from the pool so you can have someone instantly? That has to be done. If there is a desire to use the casual route to staff, then you have to broaden it up and let other people apply. People across the country will know that, like the student program, it is for a shorter term but will give you an opportunity, if you qualify, to come into the public service. That is how we run the student program. Then I would say: do it that way.
Senator Marshall: I noticed as I went through the report of eight or nine audits that there was a reference in almost every report to people being recruited into non-advertised positions. I believe that in almost all cases, you found some significant problems with the process.
Could you explain why you would have non-advertised positions? Should that continue? How do you remedy the problem?
Ms. Barrados: That is a very interesting question because when the PSEA was changed, specific provision was made for advertised and non-advertised positions. There was no preference given to advertised as opposed to non-advertised positions.
The idea was that we had to have a nimble public service and to give managers the discretion, and the commission could set policy around this. I have said that I prefer advertised positions and that they should be the first thought, although there are circumstances under which you can use non-advertised positions.
Public service managers have not been too happy about my saying that, but I truly believe in it. Our policy is that you can have an unadvertised process but you require specific justification for doing so. For example, you might have an area of real shortage that requires you to recruit a particular speciality, for example an MD or PhD. You have tried to recruit this speciality but you have not succeeded. Then, you find someone who is interested in the job. At that point, it does not make sense to have an advertised process, so an unadvertised process is acceptable.
There is another example where an unadvertised process would be acceptable. An organization might do a competition in which they said it was for that department only, but in fact there were other qualified people. Some other department could draw from those qualified lists. Technically, it is unadvertised because people did not know it would be used for other departments. There are some circumstances when I think it is alright to do.
We ask that every department set policies and procedures to determine under what circumstances they would allow an unadvertised process and that they have justification for it.
Senator Marshall: Everyone can establish their own process.
Ms. Barrados: There would be one set of principles and rules, but departments have to set the circumstances. We see that 28 per cent of the external entry to the public service are coming in unadvertised.
The big problem we have is that internal acting appointments greater than six months are running around 80 per cent unadvertised. This is another area where people get real advantage because your chance of promotion is ordinarily around 6 per cent; if you have been in an acting position, it is 40 per cent.
Senator Marshall: I think we have a handle on the problem areas, and the big challenge now is to find a solution to remedy some of those problems.
Senator Ringuette: Ms. Barrados, you know that I appreciate your recognition of the issue of geographic barriers, and then acting upon them a few years ago to remove those employment barriers to all Canadians living outside the national capital.
However, looking at the two specific reports on casual and temporary, it is evident that these two mechanisms are being used to bifurcate, to skirt the policy that you have in place in regard to the removal of geographic barriers. It seems to me that the temporary workers' report indicates that the Treasury Board policies are also being skirted.
Therefore, we have your policy and the Treasury Board policy being skirted in regard to temporary workers being hired by agencies. We also know that this is very particular to the National Capital Region. How do we remedy that? It seems that even though you have a policy and the Treasury Board has a policy, managers are not abiding by those policies. There are no tools or mechanisms to discipline, and maybe that is part of the solution we need to look at. I am of the view that both the casual and temp worker phenomena are destroying the future of a highly skilled, merit-based, Canada-wide public service.
That was a long question I know.
Ms. Barrados: It is an interesting situation because I do not think people were making individual transactions trying to circumvent the rules. I think individual managers are driven by expediency and the desire to get something done and not being fully aware of the consequences of those individual decisions. When you look at the consequences of the total decisions, I say as a consequence we have circumvention of the act. I do not think individual managers are going to work to do something incorrectly. Public servants by and large strive to be law-abiding in their efforts. The consequence of the system that we have is not good, so I agree on that point.
The question on the remedy, we have taken a first step, and that is we are having a discussion about this. We have some numbers. There were no numbers except from the expenditure numbers, and there was not much information about that. First step is we have some numbers. Next step is we have to have the conversations with the managers, and those have started, about how you use the available tools.
Next there has to be ongoing monitoring. Like many things, you have to manage this. There are places you can use it quite correctly; there are ways you can use it incorrectly. I would like monitoring and management of it, and I know in saying that, that it is very difficult to do and difficult to do with the existing systems.
In the details of the report, we have a little explanation how Mr. Hunt and his team could do this work, and they could only get information from departments that had SAP, system applications products, systems, and it was because SAP financial systems allowed us to get the names of the people who came in on contracts. We could then match it to the other pay records so we could tell the story about the use of casual and how many entered into the public service.
I see those as very important first steps, that ongoing discussion and monitoring of it so it is managed. This is an area where the consequences are for the Public Service Commission; the actual mechanisms are not really under our remit. They are contracting policy.
Senator Ringuette: However, even in the contracting policy for workers, Treasury Board has a specific policy in regard to what kind of contract and duration of contract can be awarded, so it is there even through that system.
When you did a study in regard to temporary work, did you have access to the Public Works contracting system data bank that they use to fill the temporary employees?
Ms. Barrados: Mr. Hunt led that team, so I will have him answer this.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, absolutely all the departments that participated, the 11 organizations, were forthcoming in terms of sharing information with us. As Ms. Barrados mentioned, the difficulty was that we had to use different sources of data. We had to use contracting data, financial data and HR data. It was only through those three different data sets that we were able to figure out the names of individuals and track where they came from and their subsequent employment into the public service.
Treasury Board is responsible for the policy, but the time frame is actually set by PWGSC because, as the supplier, that is their responsibility.
Senator Ringuette: Did you have access to Public Works, any kind of website in regard to contracting of temporary workers?
Mr. Hunt: Absolutely. Part of the study we looked at 10 years of data, and that was expenditure data that we used from public accounts, but as well, PWGSC has something called "The Cube'' where they have all their expenditure data from temporary help service contracts as well as all professional service contracts. It is not on the website. They provided us with access to it. We were provided with access to every piece of data that we requested.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. I want to fully understand. You are talking about data. I am talking about the Public Works website in regard to how they advertise those temporary workers. Did you have access from the time that you started the study to how and where those contracts were advertised?
Ms. Barrados: We had access to everything that Public Works had. We had good cooperation from them, and it is a process of standing offers. We did not go through and do an audit of how they arrived at that process of standing offers, but we took them from where they were.
Senator Ringuette: Where would one find those standing offers?
Ms. Barrados: We can send you the links.
Senator Ringuette: I went through Public Works' MERX process, and of all the contracts that are being advertised there, I would say that maybe 1 per cent really relates to temporary workers.
Then my question is — where do they advertise?
Mr. Hunt: In fact, there is a standing offer. When they establish the standing offer — that is, when they advertise. That standing offer lasts for four to five years, but they can replenish that standing offer. The details about the standing offer would be best directed toward PWGSC.
Ms. Barrados: We did not examine the process of getting the standing offers or the rules around them. Those are all very good questions. Our preoccupation was the people who were working in the public service, as much as we could tell, what kind of work they were doing and whether they were functioning like public servants. We did not go back to the whole standing offer process, how that was done, whether the people on the list were appropriate and whether it was renewed. We did not do that stuff. It is a good question for the Auditor General, though.
Senator Ringuette: This process is internal between Public Works and all those staffing agencies once the standing offer is accepted?
Ms. Barrados: That is true. It is a competitive process to establish the standing offers, and once the standing offers are there, then public servants can use those existing standing offers.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, all the jobs required through the different government departments are closed to public scrutiny or anyone, any Canadian anywhere in this country, from applying for a job, except if they know which staffing agency in the national capital has a standing offer for what kind of job, through what kind of department, and that they would make that public maybe through your website.
Ms. Barrados: Some of the firms that are on the standing offers are national firms. They are not just in the national capital area. They recruit themselves. They will not recruit through our website but will do their own recruitment for people to work in their firms.
Again, if this is a contractual, short-term relationship, that is fine. It is just when it begins to act and look like what the requirements are in the Public Service Employment Act for full-time workers. That is where I have the concern.
Senator Ringuette: You also indicated in your report that there are too many files in regard to these casual and temporary workers that do not have any information whatsoever in regard to the merit-based principle within the act.
Ms. Barrados: For casual there is no requirement to have a merit test. I assume people will bring someone in who can do the work. Our system is entirely set up on a requirement that people state what the merit test is. What are the essential requirements for this job? There is a fair process around getting in there, and that you demonstrate that that is met.
In the case of casual there is no requirement. There is no merit test or requirement. I assume people will get someone who will be useful to them.
In the case of the contracting, however, the firm then sets their requirements. They will be looking to set requirements for the kind of employees they want and ensure they meet the firm's requirements.
Senator Runciman: Thank you, witnesses.
I would like to ask about something a little different. With your comments with respect to the non-partisan nature of the public service — and maybe I am reading too much into what you are suggesting — I infer from it that you are concerned with the situation. There is an implied suggestion of perhaps banning public servants from running for political office. Currently, they can if they receive permission and are affiliated or a member of an organization which has a real or perceived political agenda. Am I reading correctly that this seems to be the direction in which you are heading?
Ms. Barrados: No. Some interesting background to this is that parts of the Public Service Employment Act that were restrictive of public servants' political activity were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision was that, with the Charter of Rights, public servants have the right to be politically active but must do it in such a way that they do not compromise the non-partisan nature of the public service.
The new legislation that was put in place charges the Public Service Commission with doing this. There are two parts of that section of the legislation; one part is the regime when public servants want to run for political office. They must come to the Public Service Commission for permission, and we set the rules around how they can go about being a candidate.
We had 90 public servants last year who ran for political office, most of it municipal. In most cases, we give people permission, we look at whether it is full time or not. If it is a full-time obligation in a municipality, we really do not expect them to continue to take a public service salary. In relation to that kind of thing, we are saying, no, full time is one or the other.
The ones at the municipal level, frankly, that give us some difficulty are the small communities where the presence and profile of a public servant are very close to their municipal presence. There is not a clear distinction between them. We have had people with natural resources responsibilities in their department in a small northern community and then want to be on the town council working on natural resources. This acts as a conflict and is not appropriate.
The other thing we look at for federal and provincial elections is where they work and what level of work, the relationship with the minister and whether it would impact their ability to come back to their jobs if they do not win. By and large, we set conditions about them. We will say maybe you should be going back to a different job, but by and large, we give permission with a series of conditions around them.
The other part of the legislation is the part that refers to the other activities of public servants; this is lawn signs, buttons and being politically active. Again, this is entirely a function of where the public servant is and the profile they have. For deputy ministers it is pretty clear: you vote and that is it. It is different as you go down in an organization.
Some of the issues we have are that there must be a constant reminder about this. It is now more difficult because it is a balancing act. It is not a "no.'' It is, "Yes, maybe, under some circumstances.'' For us, we look at a lot of individual cases.
We have instances where there is this blurring between what is public and private with social media. We have had instances where a public servant has been in great praise of the Leader of the Opposition while working in a senior government job. That is inappropriate. The public servant thought this was private. If it was private, it was fine. It became public, so it is not fine. We have concerns about those types of things.
The other concern we have is that the definition in the act itself is quite restrictive of "political activity'' in support of a political party. There could be issues that are actually very political, and how do we deal with those? We have had some of that. There are issues such as, yes, you can align with a party but the person is not actually working with the party, so what is that? We are a little worried about the narrowness of it.
We do try and implement the spirit of that Supreme Court decision and what is in the act. Yes, public servants have those rights, but they must do it in such a way that does not hurt the public service.
My comment to public servants all the time is that we would have changes of government, and you as a public servant should be able to serve whatever government is there, and they should be fully trusting of you and not feel that you are bringing any partisan considerations to the table.
Senator Runciman: I have few other quick questions. I am glad that you referenced the time to staff and the concern. I am not sure if there is a direct linkage in terms of your concerns about non-permanent employment and the impact that has on the use of non-permanent employees. It seems to me that, if it is taking close to half a year, we can understand why the 90 days is simply not practical when you line those two up.
You talk about probation as an alternative as well. I am not sure if you collect statistics on the use of probation and how often it has been used in terms of termination. As someone who has had to terminate employees, as human nature, I find that is a difficult task. That is why the bigger companies hire outside firms to come in and terminate. If you are just not going to renew a contract with a temp agency or something, that is a much easier way to deal with someone who is not performing. I am not sure if you collect those kinds of stats. I guess that would be a challenge, perhaps, but it would be interesting when you suggest that as an alternative.
You also mentioned six months and 40 per cent chance of getting permanent employment, but that six months is versus 90 days when you have an opportunity to give someone a test run, so that is another element that should be considered.
You were talking about the study and the limitations on it. I need some clarification on this. You were only able to get information from agencies with SAP systems. I think you mentioned there were 11 of those. How many are we talking about in the government? What is the totality of this? If you had information gleaned from all available sources, what kind of number are we looking at?
Ms. Barrados: We feel we had about 50 per cent of it, so when we do the estimates, we are doing some estimates on what it would look like in terms of number of employees. Then we put it up to the population, because we have the expenditure number.
Senator Runciman: You extrapolate this across government based on the sampling.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, and 50 per cent is a pretty good number.
Senator Runciman: It is not a bad sample in terms of validity of conclusions.
I saw another reference in here that perhaps could raise an eyebrow or two with respect to expenditures tripling in the past 10 years. You also talk about, in the past nine years, 37 per cent more employees. We have a growth of 37 per cent in terms of public service employees, and we have had certainly inflation and rising salaries over that period of time. You make that comment, but I wonder if it is fair in terms of not referencing all the other variables that could have impacted that number. It is an absolute number rather than perhaps taking those other factors into account. It could suggest a bias with respect to this whole issue. I am not saying that I agree with that, but by putting that out there, it could suggest a bit of a bias with respect to this issue.
Ms. Barrados: I could comment first on the number of people who are let go on probation. There is a Treasury Board number. We will get it and send to the committee. It is not a big number. It is really too small a number. I think it should be used more, given the tendency to use these other mechanisms, but we can ensure that the committee gets that number.
With respect to the issue on the rate of growth, we have a chart in the report on page 23. It is not the annual report, senator, but the one on temporary help. We plotted the rates of growth on the expenditures for the different types of hiring. It shows that temporary help goes up the most, starting from 2004-05. The rest of them sort of tend to grow a bit with the rest of the patterns. The terms are the ones that are really dropping off when you look at the relative expenditures, so it has gone up, and that 2004-05 is the time of the act and tightening up of the executive interchange.
Senator Runciman: You made a comment earlier about knowing someone sort of opens the door for you, but then we talked about contracts with agencies. If you talk about knowing someone, you are talking about knowing someone in the temp agency or the agency that has a contract with the government. This is not someone in government knowing someone. I wondered what you were suggesting there when you made that comment.
Ms. Barrados: The knowing someone is the casuals. There are no rules around casuals at all, and they tend to be often very informal. Knowing someone is how you get into casual employment. When you have a pattern the way we have, the theory is you just call the agency, and they send you someone. That is the theory, so there should not be any of this. In fact, we are seeing the same person appearing over and over again. They are casual, temporary help, so someone knows someone there to have this chance of them appearing continually.
Senator Runciman: It could be they know them because they are doing a good job.
Ms. Barrados: It could be.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here. We have almost beat the temporary and the casual to death, I think. If I remember correctly, you said most of the hires come out of the National Capital Region for those types of positions. I will use Saskatchewan as an example. If you need a casual or part-time person to do some work that has to do with Saskatchewan, does that mean those people from Saskatchewan do not get a chance to get the job? Would they have to come to Ottawa to do the job, or would they do the job in their province or territory? You are not likely to get someone coming from Saskatchewan — maybe I am wrong — to the capital region to work for six months or three months or something. Could you expand on that?
Ms. Barrados: The public service is 40 per cent in the National Capital Region and 60 per cent outside of it. It tends to be, though, sort of like the head office, with some exceptions, like Veterans Affairs. The economic development departments are in Ottawa, so the more senior part of the bureaucracy tends to be in Ottawa. The use of the casuals and temporary help is determined by those individual managers, and they tend to be used locally. We are finding that they are not used that much in the regions and, where they are used, they are used more appropriately. They are used truly for temporary, casual work that has a beginning and an end to it. It is in the National Capital Region where we are finding much more this phenomenon of them using longer term and more continuously and leading to permanent employment.
If someone from the regions wants to come to Ottawa to try to get in the public service this way, they could. I do not know how many have or are willing to do that. Young people are quite prepared to move for opportunities.
Senator Neufeld: You are saying the people in the regions are using the processes more appropriately than the naughty ones in the capital region, who are not using them quite as appropriately, and I understand that to a degree.
My second question is the aging of the workforce and retirement. People are retiring. In my home province it is a huge problem, especially in the senior management; a lot of people are leaving. I assume that is the same in the federal government. What involvement do you have with that process, in planning for that transition when those things take place — if, in fact, you have a responsibility?
Ms. Barrados: The way we have things set up in the federal government is that planning responsibility for what the workforce should look like — the size and composition of the workforce — is the responsibility of the employer, the government. At the Public Service Commission, we are all about how you fill those needs.
We do have the situation in the federal public service of increasing retirements. We have a departure rate of about 5 per cent; 3 per cent overall, which is retirement, runs around 9 per cent in the executive category. Because of this phenomenon, we have had some concerted effort on the part of the Clerk of the Privy Council and his deputies to do public service renewal. Kevin Lynch, as well as the current clerk, are very preoccupied about renewal of the public service.
One thing we cite in our annual report is that there has been some real success. The previous clerk, Kevin Lynch — the current focus is a little different — said we have to worry about renewing the public service, getting new people in, and I do not want this having them come in and tracking through casual and term; I want direct hires. He doubled the amount of direct hires that came into the public service through the post-secondary recruitment programs and active initiatives on the campuses.
It is not very often you see such an empirical result from initiatives taken centrally. He also wanted to reduce the number of acting appointments and those numbers came down, so there has been a big renewal effort.
We expect those retirements to go on in the public service until about 2014. It is the way that the government today will be managing its downsizing. There will be downsizing through the operational budget freezes, strategic reviews as I have talked about. With the attrition that we have going on, we should still be able to do some hiring, but we need smart hiring.
Senator Neufeld: I would get from that answer that you are feeling good about the process that is in place to look at those retirements that are coming at us, and that there should be no worry about that. Would that be correct?
Ms. Barrados: At the federal public service, we are blessed in terms of the interest of the number of people who are willing and wanting to come to work in the public service. It is not a lack of interest. Many people want to come to the public service. That is why we play such a role in having it be fair.
The challenge for the public service — and this is a preoccupation of the current clerk — is that we do that succession and knowledge transfer. Because you have a large number of people leaving who have been there for many years and have a lot of experience, we need to ensure we transfer that knowledge. That is a preoccupation.
Senator Gerstein: Madam Barrados, as Senator Murray commented in his opening remarks, it is unclear to everyone around this table whether this may or may not be your last appearance before this committee. With the possibility that it could be, I believe I speak on behalf of all members of this committee in expressing appreciation for your very enlightening and interesting appearances before this committee and for your constructive and forthcoming approach.
You have served as president of the Public Service Commission for almost seven years, and I suspect there are mornings you get up and it feels like it was just yesterday. I suspect, without being presumptuous, there may be mornings that it feels like it was decades ago that you started here. However, if you turn the clock back seven years, I suspect that as you were approaching the position, you outlined a framework of what you were going to set out to accomplish. Now that the seven years have passed and you are perhaps beginning to have the opportunity to reflect on them, what do you view as your greatest accomplishments? What is the Barrados legacy that you would like to leave? If I may pursue it a little further, what are some of your disappointments?
Ms. Barrados: I think you characterized it quite correctly. I love my job, but there are some days when I think I would like to do something else, so thank you for those very nice comments.
In terms of what I think we succeeded in doing, I think we have succeeded in putting in place the framework for the new legislation. I think we have answered many questions about the new legislation, like what should be the role of the commission and what should other people be doing. With that process, we have rebuilt the Public Service Commission. I am very proud of the rebuilding of the Public Service Commission and the work that I and my team have done to have a different working relationship with the government and deputy ministers.
I think the whole notion of delegating and streamlining that, while there is still much more to be done, we have put it on a path and I think it will have continuity. I am very pleased about that and very proud about that.
I am also proud of my whole team. We have gone from a lot of criticism as an organization to having a lot of people being very positive about our organization. Having put in place things like cost recovery, a service group, policy frameworks and having started audits from nothing, we have done a lot that I am very proud of.
What are some of things, looking back, that were disappointing? You are just brilliant in hindsight. I do not think we spent enough time early on, nor did we estimate early on how much time and effort would have to go into training and providing information and support. The change in mindset is large and rules are not the answer, so I think we should have done more than we did. That is the kind of thing that we are beginning to catch up on. That is one of the things I am thinking that, if I had to do this again, I definitely would focus much more on that than I did in those early days.
There are parts of my organization that I felt I neglected early on. That probably is invisible to others, but I had an investigation group that I did not pay enough attention to early enough with enough time, because they are very different processes — the audit and the individual investigation process with individual rights. I think we have that right, but early on I did not give that enough attention.
I have to add with all the things we have done, I have had two wonderful part-time commissioners who have been very supportive.
The Chair: Those were very eloquently stated words.
Senator Dickson: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I want to refer for a moment to the annual report. Specifically, highlighted in the annual report, there were seven major recommendations. I will concentrate on one and have your comments on it.
You said the proportion of federal departments and agencies that received a strong performance assessment for priority and staffing strategies — in planning, in particular — rose from 15 per cent in 2007-08 to 63 per cent in 2009- 10. I would like your comments on that, to change it from the negative more to the positive. Things are moving along and you are doing an excellent job.
Ms. Barrados: They are moving along as a result of my prodding, the responses of the deputies as well as the clerk being active on this.
Senator Ringuette might remember our discussions in the early days. She would ask: How many plans are there? The numbers were very small and each year she would ask the same question. Eventually, everyone have a plan, and now we are talking about the quality of the plans. I have highlighted it as good progress.
Senator Dickson: Do the audits review these plans to ensure that action has been taken and that there are benchmarks?
Ms. Barrados: Yes, that is part of what the audits do. They look at the plans and frameworks. We become very uncomfortable when a department does not have its planning and framework. The National Parole Board does not have its planning and framework, and we begin to worry when we see that.
Senator Dickson: The achievements must be to your satisfaction. I note that there were no additional conditions placed on entities during the current audit process. Is that correct?
Ms. Barrados: That is correct, except for the National Parole Board.
Senator Murray: I will make a couple of comments, and you may wish to respond to one or more or none of them.
I share Senator Runciman's view that there probably is a link between the 23 weeks on average that it takes to staff a position and the increasing resort by managers to casual, temporary and consultant hires. In fact, Senator Marshall raised the question of the unadvertised processes. It turns out that whereas the advertised positions take about 23 weeks to fill, unadvertised processes average 13 weeks. I believe those things are related.
Forgive me, I am reading the executive summary rather than the text of your audit reports for 2010. These audits are vital in a world where delegation is the norm. It seems to me that you do not do enough of them, probably for lack of resources. I look at the ones you have done this year. Two departments are fairly sizeable — Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which turns out to be a disaster area because approximately one- half of the files selected for the audit had missing or incorrect information. The other departments and agencies are relatively small — Library and Archives Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the National Parole Board, the Canadian Space Agency, and so on. You may wish to comment but I think you need to do more audits in a world where delegation is the norm. I seem to recall from one of your previous appearances before the committee that you said most agencies and departments can expect to be audited every five to seven years. I wonder whether that is often enough.
While reading some of this material, I recalled that, when the old joint committee on official languages was in business back in the 1980s, the then commissioner of official languages would make his annual report and identify departments or agencies where the implementation of the act was proceeding rather slowly and needed a lot of correction. We would summon the minister, or more usually the deputy minister, and senior officials to give an account. This would be long after you and I have gone into the sunset, but I wonder whether this committee or another might want to consider taking your report, looking at areas that needed a lot of correction and having the responsible departments in here to answer for themselves.
Finally, I join with Senator Gerstein in thanking you for your participation at this committee so often and for the work that you have done. It has been quite a remarkable seven years in terms of the life of the commission. I can say that as one who has observed it for a long time. They will find a replacement for you, I have no doubt, but they will be hard pressed to find someone as good, much less better, than you have been.
Ms. Barrados: I absolutely agree that there is a link between time to staff and the use of temporary and casual. That is why we must push on the issue of time to staff.
Do we do enough audits? We have a capacity issue in terms of how much we are capable of doing. We built up an audit function from nothing to a group of about 50 auditors. As Senator Marshall will know, that is not easy to do. We have done more of the small audits, where risks tend to be higher. We are now moving to the large ones. We do not want to do less than we are doing now, but remember that we tend to the ongoing monitoring as well. That covers us all the time, in a way.
With respect to bringing deputy ministers before committee, parliamentary committees can always do what they feel is appropriate. However, our model gives the corrective powers to me under the commission. The questions appropriately are: Have we done enough? Have we imposed the right corrective powers? If someone does not comply, we can take away all the authorities. If a staffing transaction proved to be absolutely wrong, we can revoke the appointment. We can remove people from the public service. We have those corrective powers.
Senator Murray: That is a nuclear bomb.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, but we have removed delegations and we have removed people — although not many. An appropriate question to the commission and to future commissions is: What are you doing to exercise those powers on Parliament's behalf?
Senator Ringuette: I guess we share the sense of value in your work since you took over the PSC. As a forward to your Barrados' report, we should hear from officials at the Treasury Board and Public Works and Government Services Canada to increase our knowledge of the situation.
Ms. Barrados, in your interview with the Ottawa Citizen, you said that this upward trend of temporary workers is of concern as it poses risks to the integrity of the staffing system. Could you expand on that?
Ms. Barrados: When you see an upward trend of temporary workers being used for temporary purposes, I have no problem. However, we have seen an increased use of temporary workers for longer term and continuous working relationships. The risk occurs when the upward trend is this latter form of relationship, which worries me. That is why I said that there was a risk.
Senator Ringuette: You said that the report found departments are so dependent on temporary workers that they have become an "additional workforce'' within the government that skirts the Public Service Employment Act, which governs the rest of the public service.
Ms. Barrados: That is correct. If you were to ask how many people are working in Ottawa, I would give the number of employees who would come through the Public Service Employment Act. Under my responsibility, it is 216,000. That number would not include those who are temporary workers through temporary agencies because they come through contracts.
Senator Ringuette: The study found that 73 per cent of temporary workers in your sample ended up with term and permanent positions that should have been advertised.
Ms. Barrados: I believe that the number of such workers is one in five.
Senator Ringuette: The article says 73 per cent of them.
Mr. Hunt: We identified that as a mistake in that article.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Was it corrected?
Ms. Barrados: We never said it. The number is one in five, in my brain.
Senator Ringuette: That is 20 per cent.
You said that the spending on temporary agencies has exploded in recent years, tripling.
Ms. Barrados: I did not say "exploded'' either.
Senator Ringuette: The journalist said it had exploded.
Since the policy of removing geographic barriers for staffing has been put in place, has there been an explosion of people applying for these advertised jobs who do not live in the national capital?
Ms. Barrados: Absolutely, and there has been a big increase in appointments, too. Those appointments are running around 20 per cent, so we have definitely seen an impact with the change of that policy.
Senator Ringuette: Bravo. Can your data bank system and your web-based system advertise for pools of people?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Why are the departments not using that valuable tool? Essentially, taxpayers have added, if my memory is right, anything between $47 million and $48 million over a five-year period to upgrade the technology at the commission. The use of temporary agencies, those agencies only create pools of their own, so why are we not using what the taxpayer has already paid for, that is your system, to create those pools and create some kind of fairness for the eligible people across the country to be hired as temporary workers?
Ms. Barrados: The jobs website is one thing that is required, so there are a couple of things we have not delegated. Every government department that is under our responsibility must post their jobs on the job website; there is no choice. They can post other places as well, but there has to be the one place.
Your question about the pools is a good question. We have initiated a number of pools. I think departments are getting it. There is a push to do more. The chief human resources officer is pushing hard on this, so I think you will see improvements on that. I truly hope so, but I am getting the indications that people want to go there.
You raised the technology, and this gives me an opportunity to say that I have succeeded in getting ongoing funding for our technology. I have raised this issue a number of times at this committee. I have ongoing funding coming from the departments directly who are paying for the use of technology, and we are putting in the internal processes on this same technological frame, so we are making good progress.
Senator Ringuette: Is Public Works aware that all the contracting out and standing offers that they have should be done through what your system can provide that has already been paid for by taxpayers?
Ms. Barrados: Public Works is contributing to our system, and I do have conversations with the deputy on a regular basis.
Senator Callbeck: I am looking for more information on the student programs. We talked about the recruitment campaign. You will get me the numbers of those who have actually been hired, and I would like to have the numbers on that for the last five years by province.
As well, on page 165 we have the applicants again for another program, the Federal Student Work Experience Program, and I would like to have the numbers there as to how many have been hired by province going back for five years.
I do not see any chart here for the Co-operative Education and Internship Program. The figures may be in here but I have not seen them, and I would like to get the equivalent figures for that program.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, we will do that.
Senator Callbeck: Certainly, Ms. Barrados, I want to commend you on your excellent and valuable work over the past seven years.
Ms. Barrados: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Barrados, how many employees do you have in the Public Service Commission?
Ms. Barrados: About 1,000.
The Chair: What is your total budget?
Ms. Barrados: It is $93 million.
The Chair: Thank you. We have gone over our time allotment. You can see the interest of this committee in the work that you are doing and how much we appreciate the work you are doing. I could never say nearly as eloquently as Senators Gerstein and Murray and others how much we appreciate your help over the years. It may well be that we will talk to you again in the spring. We still have some time, and I think we have to visit the fundamental issue of delegation. One of your accomplishments is making that work, but should we not go back to that concept and say, yes, we have made it work, but is the concept something we need to continue with and should it be continued with.
Before, you did all the hiring and controlled the people within your group. Now you have delegated that and are monitoring it. Is that efficiency? The objective of giving the deputy ministers more say about how they run their various departments, including hiring, is it worth that inefficiency that has obviously been created? There are issues we will have to talk about.
Ms. Barrados: If I may, Mr. Chair, I really believe it is the right model because the deputy minister is responsible for a very large organization. Some of them are 40,000, 23,000, 24,000 people. They are the managers and should have the tools to manage. From my days in financial management I said that, and I say that for HR management.
The question is how best do we support that and yet maintain the integrity of what we want out of our legislation, and I think we are in the right direction, but it would be a very good discussion to have.
The Chair: You are quite right and we will look forward to that discussion leading up to May 2011. For today, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank you and your colleagues, Mr. Lemaire and Mr. Hunt, for being here and helping us understand more fully the important work you are doing to help us do our job.
(The committee adjourned.)