Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 22 - Evidence - November 24, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:48 p.m. to examine the Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011 (Topic: Public Service Renewal).
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.
Thank you all honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen for being here. We should have a good evening.
[Translation]
This evening we will continue our study on the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, which have been referred to our committee.
[English]
In the course of its work, this committee takes particular interest in the machinery of government and the public service. We regularly hear from departments and agencies, as well as officers of Parliament and senior officials to better understand how public funds are spent and the controls and processes that exist to manage them.
We welcome this evening Mr. Wayne Wouters, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. This Mr. Wouters' first appearance before this Senate committee, at least in this capacity, and we are very pleased that you are here, sir.
The responsibilities of the clerk are broad and varied, as most honourable senators will be aware. However, one of his better known roles, and one that we will be particularly emphasizing this evening, is as head of the public service.
He is accompanied by several senior officials this evening; we welcome each of you. From the Privy Council Office, PCO, we have Ms. Patricia Hassard, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal. We also have with us Ms. Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister (Corporate Services). Also from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — and we hear from them often — Mr. Wouters is joined by Ms. Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer. Thank you for being here.
We will begin as we normally do, honourable senators, by having some introductory remarks from Mr. Wouters, and then we can go into a discussion. You have the floor.
Wayne Wouters, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office: I am very pleased to be here this evening with my colleagues, whom you have just introduced. We are here to talk about public service renewal and other issues of the public service, along with any questions you may have.
I would like to begin my remarks by talking about the overall challenges facing the Public Service of Canada, PSC, and how we have met and will continue to meet these challenges in the years ahead.
Five years ago, we were faced with an imperative to renew the public service as a result of an aging workforce and the increasing complexity of the public policy environment. In response, we put in place an overarching management strategy that focused on public service renewal.
Over the last four and half years, we have made significant progress on renewal initiatives. This work needs to continue so that PSC remains a vital and relevant institution.
[Translation]
As you probably know, a non-partisan, professional public service is an essential component of our democratic system in Canada.
[English]
The issues we have dealt with over the past year illustrate that complexity and unpredictability have become permanent features of our operating environment. We have a strong public service of which we can be proud. However, it is increasingly clear to me that we need to evolve and adapt as a national institution.
[Translation]
Although we have weathered the economic crisis that affected economies around the world better than many others, and despite the fact that we are well-positioned going forward, we are still in recovery mode.
[English]
The road ahead will be challenging as we move to simultaneously balance our budgets and encourage economic growth in Canada. We are in an era of restraint. In this context, Canadians are demanding even more rigorous management of tax dollars, greater accountability and improved services.
[Translation]
Citizens' expectations of the government have perhaps never been higher.
[English]
Over the last year, PSC has demonstrated its ability to respond. Public servants implemented Canada's Economic Action Plan following the budget in 2009; delivered unprecedented humanitarian relief in Haiti after the earthquake; managed the massive distribution of the H1N1 vaccine; and supported the successful 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. At the same time, public servants have been quietly delivering services and programs for Canadians across the country and in many places around the world.
Public service renewal is our management strategy to ensure the federal public service continually improves its ability to deliver excellent advice to government and service to Canadians, no matter how circumstances change.
Starting in 2006, the strategic foundation for renewal has been set out in the clerk's annual report to the Prime Minister. We focused on getting the fundamentals right for managing our people and delivering on the business of government.
First, we set up a governance structure to ensure accountability.
[Translation]
Two important committees were established to guide our work. First is the Deputy Minister Committee on Public Service Renewal, chaired by the associate secretary to the cabinet.
[English]
Second is the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on the Public Service, which is co-chaired by the Honourable Paul Tellier and the Honourable David Emerson.
Our renewal strategy has been built on four pillars: better, more integrated business and human resource planning; targeted recruitment — which we have done to a greater extent than in previous years; more effective employee development; and workplace improvements to enable our workforce.
To group our efforts, every year we have created public service renewal action plans. These plans contain specific commitments for the senior leadership. I can say that we have made good progress and have achieved some real results.
We have embedded, probably for the first time in many years, integrated and human resource planning in departments to better align our goals, our resources and our results. Good planning allows us to identify and address any gaps in our workforce.
We are attempting to address our demographic challenges. We recruited extensively through post-secondary recruitment campaigns to fill the workforce gap that resulted from a near-total freeze in external recruitment in the 1990s. For the last two to three years, we have been back on campuses again.
We are steadily increasing our diversity, especially in our new recruits. Women now represent 43 per cent of our executives and 38 per cent of our deputy ministers. I do not think any large enterprise in Canada is doing better than us on that front.
The representation of visible minorities in the executive cadre has also increased from 3 per cent to 6 per cent between 2000 and 2009. We have put an emphasis on performance management for results. We now have a comprehensive talent management framework for deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, which has been referred to as ``best in class.''
We are moving forward with pay and pension modernization to replace 40-year old systems, laying the groundwork for other needed improvements to our back-office systems. We have also clarified the way human resource management responsibilities are organized in the public service.
Deputy ministers now have primary responsibility for managing their people. We have streamlined the role of central agencies and created the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer. Ms. Meredith is here with me; she fills that position for the Government of Canada.
Our progress on renewal has been the result of sustained and consistent strategic focus and the active engagement of public service leaders, managers and employers.
[Translation]
Going forward in a period of fiscal restraints, good management of the public service and sustained attention to renewing our workforce and workplace become even more important.
[English]
Rebalancing the budget and improving our business model will provide the overall context for our operations over the next few years. We will continue to find new and more cost-effective ways to deliver better services to Canadians and to provide high-quality advice to the government.
We will continue to recruit, albeit not at the same levels as we have seen in the last couple of years. We need to become even more targeted about who we recruit and the skill sets we need. We will also continue to train and develop our employees and leaders so that they can excel in their jobs. We will continue to focus on creating productive workplaces using new technology, updating our back-office systems and streamlining our internal administrative practices.
We will continue to reach out for good ideas to inform policy development and advice and to work collaboratively within and across departments to sustain a high-performing public service.
In conclusion, I set out our priorities and measure our progress in the clerk's annual reports to the Prime Minister on the PSC. My next report will be published in April of 2011. This approach has served us well, providing a means for demonstrating accountability, maintaining the momentum for change and deepening the engagement of senior leaders, managers and public servants.
In their latest report, the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on the Public Service stated that ``a high-performing and values-driven public service is critical to the success of every country in today's complex and interconnected world. In Canada, our Public Service is a national asset, a part of Canada's comparative advantage and key to our competitive performance in the global economy.'' The sustained focus on renewal will continue so that the public service is well equipped to serve the government and also to serve Canadians now and into the future.
Thank you for the opportunity for me to make these introductory comments, and now my colleagues and I would be very happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you all for coming this evening and for your remarks.
With respect to the budget of the Privy Council, why are the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council budgets not separate?
Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister (Corporate Services), Privy Council Office: Until 2006-07, we had the presentation of the Prime Minister's budget separately, but over time, Treasury Board has changed the way we present our estimates and how we report. Rather than on an organizational basis — and this is true not only of our department but also of all ministers in all departments — the information on what we do is captured on an activity basis.
Mr. Wouters: We do report the spending in ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office; they appear in the public accounts each year. The actual spending is always recorded in the public accounts, so one would be able to get that information from year to year through those particular reports.
Senator Callbeck: Can you give us the figures for how many people work in the Prime Minister's Office and how many people work in the Privy Council Office? What are the budget amounts for salaries?
Ms. MacPherson: In the Prime Minister's Office at this time, 2010-11, the budget is $11.144 million, and there are 104 full-time equivalents, FTEs. I should point out that we do not manage FTEs; it is an amount we put there. Offices can actually have more people or less people as long as they do not exceed the salary budget, and that applies to the Prime Minister's Office and the department.
In the department, our salary budget is $92.6 million and represents approximately 950 FTEs.
The Chair: Does that include the 104 FTEs in the Prime Minister's Office?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, it includes those.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have figures going back a couple of years?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, I do. I have figures going back probably eight or ten years.
Senator Callbeck: Let us go back five years.
Ms. MacPherson: For the Prime Minister's Office, starting in 2006-07, there were 85 FTEs and an initial budget of $8.159 million. In 2007-08, there were again 85 FTEs and a budget of $8.495 million. Do you want each year?
Senator Callbeck: No, just five years back. That is the Prime Minister's Office. What about the Privy Council Office?
Ms. MacPherson: In 2006-07, our salary budget in total was $73.271 million. The FTEs were 903.
Senator Callbeck: Now you are at 950 FTEs?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Your salary has increased by 30 per cent.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: That is quite an increase in those salary figures.
Mr. Wouters: I could explain the increase, if you would like. Since 2006-07 to 2009, we have taken on a number of additional responsibilities, including preparation for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games on the security front. We coordinated the work on that. We also coordinated the work on the G8 and G20 security.
We also took on the overall coordinating role for Afghanistan with the Afghanistan Task Force. That was a result of a report that I think was tabled before Parliament. We also transferred from the Treasury Board Secretariat, as part of the review of the human resources functions of the centre versus line departments, the work of the Public Service Renewal Secretariat that came over. Therefore, that along with some salary increases, economic increases, accounts for a good share of that increase. I think it was about $23 million overall.
With respect to some of those functions, as you know, we will have to look at the Afghanistan Task Force coordinating function now that the government has made a decision on its role going forward. Clearly, we are winding down the G8 and G20 role. Therefore, some of those functions are basically beginning to sunset.
Senator Callbeck: On the PCO budget, I would like to ask about the Public Appointments Secretariat, which is over $1 million. There is no commissioner, and I believe the Prime Minister has said that he will never appoint one. How many people are there, and from whom do they take direction? What are they doing?
Patricia Hassard, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Public Service Renewal, Privy Council Office: This commission has not been set up, but there is a secretariat that has been doing the groundwork, policy work and draft code of practice to prepare for the eventual establishment of the commission.
As you know, the Federal Accountability Act was passed in December of 2006, so there is a small secretariat. It is made up of one individual who is an executive and one assistant. I believe the budget is $1 million per year, but nowhere near that amount is being spent.
Again, it is in preparation for the establishment of the commission, and it will be up to the government to determine the time frame for establishing the commission.
Senator Callbeck: Has the Prime Minister not said that he will never appoint a commissioner?
Ms. Hassard: I do not believe he said that.
Mr. Wouters: I believe what he said was that when he felt he would gain support in the house, he would consider moving forward with it. As you know, when he brought forward a candidate, there generally was not overall support for the candidate. He has said that he would consider that if there was support in the house to do so.
The Chair: To clarify the record, that was before the legislation was passed.
Mr. Wouters: I think what the legislation does is essentially outline the process for the appointment, which is to require that not only must the leaders be consulted but also, of course, the Senate and the house. The individual must come before those, and I think it was in that context that the Prime Minister felt that support was required to bring forward another candidate.
Senator Callbeck: How many years has that been? That $1 million has been in the estimates for three or four years now.
Ms. Hassard: It was since December of 2006, I believe.
Senator Callbeck: It has been four years, which would add up to $4 million.
Ms. Hassard: As I indicated, that is not what was spent in those years. Ms. MacPherson has the figures.
Ms. MacPherson: I am not sure that I have them here with me, but the figures are considerably less than that. The secretariat was only staffed up to its full complement of four people in the first year of its operation and then went dormant for a period of time. Then two people were actually employed there for a period of time.
Ms. Hassard: I have the figures. It was $633,000 in 2006-07 when a number of people, more than two, were in the secretariat; $113,000 in 2007-08; $347,000 in 2008-09; and $291,000 in 2009-10.
Senator Callbeck: Are they just preparing to set up this secretariat then?
Ms. Hassard: That is right. When the commission is set up, its first task is to establish a code of practice with minimum standards for appointments of public-office holders in the federal government. Research and analysis has been done to draft a code of practice and the standards that would need to be met.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Wouters, to you and your officials for being here tonight.
In the report that you prepared, the seventeenth annual report for the year ending March 31, 2010, you spoke about diversity in the public service. Could you just give us an overview of the progress that we have made in that regard in the past several years?
Also, I notice that we are not quite there yet in the area of visible minorities. Could you speak to how we will approach that in the future?
Mr. Wouters: It is fair to say that we still have some distance to go, particularly with visible minorities, as you note. We have made some very good progress in the public service in that respect. I talked about that, particularly about the executive level for women. In fact, we have more women in the public service now than men. That role has been reversed: About 55 per cent are women today, where 15 years ago, 55 per cent were men. I think we have done a very good job not only bringing women into the public service but moving them through the system and into the executive ranks right up to the deputy level.
With respect to Aboriginal people, compared to workforce availability, I think we are holding our own. We would always like to have more Aboriginal people, and the challenge there still is moving more Aboriginal people into the executive level. Again, relative to workforce availability, it is an area where we have done quite well, as well as with persons with disabilities.
We are meeting our overall workforce availability targets. We still need to make more progress in the area of visible minorities, but we are closing the gap, particularly in recruitment. Since we have been out recruiting much more aggressively than we have in the past, from universities and elsewhere, we are finding that we are becoming much more successful at that level. During our first year of recruitment, we reached around 13 per cent for recruitment of visible minorities. Last year, we reached 22 per cent. Through those initiatives, we are beginning to reflect how the country looks.
With respect to visible minorities and other challenge that still exists, we have to be much more proactive in moving these people into the executive ranks as well. We are making progress, but further work needs to be done.
Senator Marshall: For the three groups that we have made progress on, will we be continuing with programs to attract these groups to the public service? Considering the fact we have reached our goal, would we now terminate those programs? What are we doing for the future?
Mr. Wouters: Definitely we will want to continue to attract these people into the public service. For us to provide good advice to ministers, how the country looks must be reflected. That is why it is important to always ensure that we have a good diversity in our workforce. We will continue to work hard through our recruitment efforts to do so.
How we promote and move them forward is part of the overall performance management system of our executives, right up to the deputy. As part of their performance pay, we look at how they are doing each year in meeting employment equity and diversity targets. That does not apply only to deputies; we do that at all levels of the executive ranks.
This is something we need to continue. We cannot fall back. We have to progress further than we have in some areas.
Senator Marshall: Is there anything extra or special that we are planning to do for visible minorities where we have not reached our goal?
Mr. Wouters: One thing we are doing much better today than, I would argue, we did three to five years ago is a much more comprehensive talent management system. Through that exercise, which we do now systematically across the deputy, associate deputy and ADM levels — some departments have gone down further than that — we are beginning to identify where we have gaps and where we can begin to place visible minorities in different positions across our system.
When doing so department by department, you expect your departments to do the same, which they are. However, we need to achieve these corporate objectives more broadly by looking across all departments. We are doing that now much more systematically at the deputy and ADM levels. I hope that way we will then be able to help move some of these individuals to more senior ranks in the public service.
Ms. Hassard: We have a program known as the Advanced Leadership Program. We are running it for the fourth time this coming year. About 25 senior executives are put on that program, and when they are selected, there is very deliberate attention paid to the employment equity categories to ensure that visible minorities and the other employment equity categories receive opportunities to enrich their own development.
Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I will add something from my perspective. We work as well with employment equity groups to identify where they feel we can make better progress. From some of the feedback we have had, they would really benefit from soft measures of mentoring, leadership development and networking. Those are very much areas of focus for departments, as well as how to create those active development and networking environments in order to offer them a promotion.
Senator Marshall: Within the public service generally, we are embarking on an era of restraint. What challenges do you see in that environment for public service renewal?
Mr. Wouters: There are several challenges. As I said, we have been working very hard to recruit at all levels of the public service and to put in place employee development programs, et cetera. During a restraint period, as I noted at the outset, we will not see the recruitment levels at the same levels we have in the last couple of years.
However, if you look at what the government has actually announced about restraint measures in the last budget, unlike what we are seeing in provincial governments and other governments, there was no freeze put on hiring, nor was there a freeze on the salary of the public service. There was a freeze put on the budgets of departments. That has its challenges, but it gives departments the opportunity to continue to recruit and replace those who retire and move on.
It may mean, if they do that, that they have to find savings in other areas because they have to meet the overall budget restraint. However, from my point of view, and I think from a deputy's point of view, it gives them the maximum flexibility in a restraint period to say, for example, that I am losing many scientists and cannot afford not to replace these scientists, yet move forward and continue to hire.
However, they may then have to do less in terms of contracting, et cetera. These are the kinds of decisions that will have to be made.
Senator Eaton: Following on Senator Marshall's questions, would you say that you are taking affirmative action in looking at minorities, Aboriginals or women in the public service?
Mr. Wouters: I would not call it affirmative action. From my point of view, we are not necessarily specifically saying that you must achieve this target, this X per cent. Overall, we have targets, but we are not making them a requirement in that you must have this number of people in those positions by such and such a time. We are saying that we have to make steady progress.
We always use workforce availability as our overriding objective, that we should at least be equivalent in the country. Workforce availability — Aboriginal people, for example — is different in the West than it is in the East, but we should continue to try to achieve workforce ability objectives across the country.
Ms. Meredith: Departments under the Employment Equity Act have obligations as well to remove obstacles to representation from those employment equity groups. They have an obligation to ensure that barriers are removed, and to have employment equity plans in place that allow them to identify where they need greater representation and should plan in order to achieve it.
There is a focus on employment equity and representation, and a deliberate planning effort to achieve acceptable representation.
Senator Eaton: In other words, merit is no longer trumps.
Ms. Meredith: Absolutely not. Merit is always the basis of any appointment process, as Ms. Barrados will tell you as well. That is the absolute standard — that anyone appointed to a position has to meet the merit criterion first.
Senator Eaton: The Canadian public service, at one point, was considered the best and the brightest. We had a outstanding reputation in the world for the excellence of our public service. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Wouters: Yes.
Senator Eaton: What happened along the way? Was it because we stopped recruiting? Was it because we stopped thinking of the public service as the idea of service? What do you think? You must have analyzed this when you set out this new way of looking at how you will make it better.
Mr. Wouters: The base of your question is that the public service today does not have the same reputation as it perhaps had 20 or 30 years ago. That is a proposition with which, with all due respect, I do not necessarily agree.
Senator Eaton: I am asking you, does it?
Mr. Wouters: I think it does.
Senator Eaton: Do we still have the reputation of being the best and the brightest?
Mr. Wouters: We have public servants from around the world that continue to come to learn from our model. It does not mean that we do not continue to improve on how we manage the operations of government, how we provide advice. There is always room for improvement; there is no doubt about that.
Perhaps I am biased, but if I were to measure our public service relative to many others — and we do collectively; I do meet with many senior public servants, my colleagues around the world — I still believe that our public service is bar none and will stand up to any public service around the world.
Ms. Hassard: This is the clerk's seventeenth annual report; one of the annexes has a section on benchmarking renewal and the Canadian public service. It says that Canada ranks high in international comparisons of government performance for 2009.
As part of a review of countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, the United Kingdom compared the different systems, and Canada came out near the very top for looking at its own management and improving its capacity to perform.
Perhaps the clerk would like to explain what the management accountability framework is because he was one of the founders of it. However, this is a program that measures how well departments are doing on the management front. Year over year, for the last seven years, departments have done better and better on their management.
Senator Eaton: That is wonderful to hear. Do you have trouble keeping political partisanship out of the public service?
Mr. Wouters: No.
Senator Eaton: Is that an issue among you all?
Mr. Wouters: Every government changes; therefore, as public servants, we do provide non-partisan advice, but we have to recognize the government in power. That is, by nature, our role. It is basically providing advice within a certain framework; that framework does change as governments change.
I have now worked for three different political parties: the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I felt quite comfortable over my career working for those different parties and providing advice, recognizing that it is a different framework.
The government sets the framework, and our job, whatever the framework, is to provide good policy advice — doing good analytical work, doing the diagnostic right, preparing options and giving them our best advice. Then it is up to the government to accept that advice or not, whatever they decide, and it is our job to loyally implement it. The system has worked well.
Senator Eaton: Do you have seminars or training programs when people come in to the public service to depoliticize them?
Mr. Wouters: That is a very good question, senator. No, we try to talk about our values. The most important aspect for us as public servants is our values and ethics. We have to continue, right from the beginning, to reinforce the values of the public service.
We are coming out — very soon, hopefully — with a new values and ethics code on which Ms. Meredith and her team, along with all public servants, have been working. We have one; however, there is a need to update and modernize it because they do change over time.
What drives the public service in Canada, whether you are working at the federal, municipal or provincial level, is that our system is non-partisan and must be values-based. I think it worked for us. I do not feel that we need to necessarily have specific training on political oversight.
Senator Eaton: You have values education, correct?
Mr. Wouters: That is where it comes from. That is what we try to reinforce at all levels of the public service.
Senator Peterson: The Main Estimates for 2009-10 included a request to Parliament for $61 million for the Prime Minister's support. That amount has risen to more than $74 million in the Main Estimates for 2010-11. Could you tell us what amount is being requested in the Supplementary Estimates (B)?
Mr. Wouters: Again, I will ask my chief financial adviser.
Ms. MacPherson: Are you talking about 2009-10?
Senator Peterson: The amount was $61 million then, and in 2010-11, it went up to $74 million. What amount is being requested in the Supplementary Estimates (B)?
Ms. MacPherson: That is the changeover from the 2009-10 Main Estimates to the Main Estimates for 2010-11. The change was $13 million.
At this point in time, in our Supplementary Estimates (B), we are asking for $1.4 million.
Senator Peterson: There is an item in the PCO department, ``Funding to support security-related initiatives, including security equipment upgrades,'' of around $3 million. Is that for the start of the upgrades in the IT equipment, or is it for something else?
Ms. MacPherson: It covers a range of things. The reason that amount is in the supplementary estimates is because we have been looking at our security profile, and we are concerned with ensuring that we maintain the protection of our staff, our information and our buildings, particularly the Langevin Building. We have considered some priority items that really need to be done right away, and we are asking for $2.9 million for those. That would include upgrades for top secret space, for which we do not have sufficient space currently in our workspace. We are also looking to upgrade our communications system. We have a very antiquated radio system for our commissionaires who patrol the buildings. These units are over 20 years old. While, over the course of the last few years, we have been able to reallocate within our budget to maintain our infrastructure, we have not been able to upgrade it or improve it.
We are also looking at increasing the monitoring of our IT systems. As you are aware, there are increasing sophisticated threats to our information systems. We are very conscious of the fact that the PCO and the Prime Minister's Office, PMO, hold a lot of very sensitive information, so we are looking to increase the amount of monitoring we do on our systems.
The Chair: Senator Peterson asked you a question about Supplementary Estimates (B) and how much of what you are asking for related to the Prime Minister's Office. I think you gave the global figure for the department, did you not?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
The Chair: What portion of that global figure for the department is for the Prime Minister's Office in the supplementary estimates?
Ms. MacPherson: Very little of it is for the PMO. The supplementary estimates are broken down. The security portion is $2.9 million, and 80 per cent to 90 per cent of that will be in internal because it deals with security. There is $0.6 million for the continuation of activities for the investigation of Air India Flight 182. That is not related to the Prime Minister's Office, nor is the continuation of activities for $0.2 million for the Mulroney-Schreiber Commission. It is being offset by a $1.6 million reduction. As you know, the Prime Minister has required that there be reductions in ministers' offices. We will be doing that. We have five ministers plus the Prime Minister in our portfolio. That will be a reduction of $1.6 million. That will affect ``Program Activity One,'' which is support to the Prime Minister.
We have a $0.7-million reduction across all of our program activities, and that relates to the requirement to freeze salaries. Treasury Board did actually allocate us a portion of money that is now being taken back that was relative to this fiscal year, and that will cover all of our program activities.
Senator Peterson: Did someone add that up?
The Chair: You gave us all these figures and said that there is not much for the Prime Minister's Office in this and not in that. I was following you, but I do not know how much ``not much'' is.
Ms. MacPherson: The only area where there would be any significant impact on the Prime Minister's Office would be where we are reducing reference levels due to salary freezes. In all other respects, the funds are distributed across internal services for security and for commissions of inquiry.
The Chair: Senator Peterson, are you satisfied with that answer?
Senator Peterson: We did the best we could.
The Chair: He is satisfied with your answer.
Senator Runciman: My question is related to the restraint measures and the Parliamentary Budget Officer suggesting you are not meeting the goals set out. Do you have any reaction to that? Is that an accurate assessment, and if yes, how do you come to grips with it?
Mr. Wouters: You might want to have the deputy of finance come to talk to you about that, senator. My understanding of the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was that he was fairly close to where the government's forecasts were on the overall revenue projections.
Where he had some difficulty was in the government's projections of overall spending; he felt that the government's estimates forecasts were too low. I do not have the exact figures, but that was the area. Generally with forecasting, you run into difficulties on the revenue side because on the expenditure side, for the most part, the government can control going forward. The government laid out a fiscal track in the last budget, which is resulting in about 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent growth in spending, and that is part of the restraint measures that the government put in place in the last budget to achieve that. They have maintained that fiscal track in the economic fiscal update following Budget 2010 in the fall, and now of course work is under way to prepare for the 2011 budget.
Senator Runciman: How much flexibility do you have with the program? You mentioned earlier trying to keep scientists, for example. Is this a standardized approach across government, or is there flexibility so that it is not siloed? Is there latitude afforded to you or to whomever to make a decision on moving dollars around?
Mr. Wouters: There are a couple of exercises. The government, in the last budget, reduced the overall growth in the defence budget, in the aid budget; therefore, that created some fiscal room, which was then used to reallocate in the budget to fund other measures and priorities the government had. They introduced the freeze on budgets, so once you did that, it meant that what was projected by way of budget increases in previous budgets was flatlined. That also provided additional savings to the government, which has been reallocated as part of the last budget.
Also each year the government undertakes a strategic review exercise. We take roughly 25 per cent to 30 per cent of direct program spending and review all of that spending. At the same time, as part of the review, each department has to come forward and identify their lowest priority, lowest-performing 5 per cent, which then in each budget is up for reallocation.
Essentially, it is through those exercises that the government has been able to reallocate from areas where they felt there was room to manoeuvre and, as part of the budget exercises, reallocate to other priorities. If you go into the budget of last year, you will see where the additional spending took place.
Senator Runciman: I am jumping all over the map here. I read an article recently where the writer suggested that minority governments are creating additional stresses and pressures for the public service because of the uncertainty of the politics. Do you have any reaction to that?
Mr. Wouters: I do not think I want to comment on what Canadians have decided vis-à-vis the government they have. That is what we have. It is a minority government, and our role and responsibility is to serve the government of the day as best we can regardless of the structure and the representation of the government. That is what we try to do.
Senator Runciman: I believe that, given my experience with the public service at the provincial level. I very much appreciate what you are doing.
On retention of staff, we are talking about the restraint measures. You talked about keeping scientists. Are there other areas that jump out at you where you have real challenges with not only retaining but attracting highly skilled and highly qualified individuals? I have a personal interest in the psychiatrists in the corrections system. Can you give us any indication of where you are facing pressures?
Mr. Wouters: Ms. Meredith could probably address this better than I can. There are a number of areas that I would argue have been more challenging. The recruitment of financial officers has been challenging. I think that is changing as a result of the economic recession; we feel it is easier to attract more of those people. Senior financial officers have been a particular challenge.
As well, there is a challenge with IT expertise in the system because often these individuals can go to the private sector where the compensation is somewhat better; they have been attracted there in past years. As I said, the world is changing somewhat now; we may not have the same difficulty looking ahead as we have had in the past.
Ms. Meredith, do you have anything further to add?
Senator Runciman: Do you have appropriate tools to reward good performance? Could you incorporate that into your answer also?
Ms. Meredith: Certainly. In addition to the financial officers and IT professionals who Mr. Wouters mentioned, we have challenges with medical practitioners, such as nurses and veterinarians.
We try to align and set compensation at levels that are comparable to the external market. We tend not to lead the market in our levels of compensation, so we are not about to pay higher than what we see in the private sector or other governments. We do try to ensure some level of comparability so that we can attract talent. Occasionally, we use special, but temporary, means as specific attraction tools where we have real problems.
We set pay through our collective bargaining with the unions, and those discussions involve, in part, exchanging information on the external markets.
Senator Runciman: This is a bit out of left field, I guess, but what is the relationship with your Privy Council Office and Crown corporations? How does that relationship work?
Mr. Wouters: It depends on the Crown corporation.
Senator Runciman: Specifically, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC.
Mr. Wouters: The CBC is a partially appropriated Crown. Our role at the Privy Council Office is largely through Governor-in-Council appointments. Ms. Hassard is responsible for that. We would be part of the exercise of working with boards to select and appoint CEOs, for example, and recommend performance pay to the Prime Minister for CEOs and so on. That is generally our role. Certain public policy issues, of course, in managing the cabinet system and advising the Prime Minister could apply to a Crown corporation.
Senator Runciman: I am a hockey fan, or at least a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, and I recently read a news report that said that the CBC could have retained the NHL theme song, ``Hockey Night in Canada,'' for $500 a game. Instead, they spent an untold hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on going another route. The key here is the refusal of the CBC to make that information public, even rejecting an appeal, I think, from the Privacy Commissioner with respect to this.
I am talking about one specific Crown corporation, but if a Crown corporation takes this kind of action, is there a role for the PCO to play in that?
Mr. Wouters: First and foremost, each minister has overall responsibility for a department, normally for a portfolio, which could include Crown corporations. The deputy minister of that department will support the minister. The minister is able to reach an agreement on the overall strategic objectives of the corporation, which can be done on a regular basis. It really begins there with the minister and his or her oversight of departments and Crown corporations.
As I said, we get involved if there is a broad public policy issue that requires a cabinet discussion or a discussion with the Prime Minister. Otherwise, the day-to-day operations are left to the board and to the CEO, and the overall strategic direction is agreed to by the board and the CEO with the minister responsible.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you. I have many different lines of questions.
My first question is about the numbers that were provided earlier. You indicated that in this fiscal year, the budget for PCO, which includes the Office of the Prime Minister, was $92.6 million. However, in Supplementary Estimates (B), which I have in front of me, I see that the budget is almost $159 million.
Ms. MacPherson: In 2009-10, I said that we had a total amount in salaries of $92.6 million.
Senator Ringuette: You were talking about only salary, is that right?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: I am looking at the entire budget.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: That is the difference in the numbers, then.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Then compare apples with apples, there is $3 million more this year than last year in the total budget.
Ms. MacPherson: In the total budget?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, comparing Main Estimates to Main Estimates.
Ms. MacPherson: Do I have that?
Senator Ringuette: The difference would be $15 million.
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: What justifies that increase of $15 million?
Ms. MacPherson: It was made up of a series of add-ins and offsets. Do you want me to go through them?
Senator Ringuette: What are the major ones?
Ms. MacPherson: Under increases are the following: $7.6 million related to funding for additional operating requirements to eliminate chronic funding pressures in the department; $3.6 million for the implementation and coordination of a government-wide communications strategy for Canada's Economic Action Plan; $3.4 million for collective bargaining agreements — as I mentioned, a portion of that is being taken back in Supplementary Estimates (B); $1.8 million for the transfer of the Public Service Renewal Task Force Branch from the former Canada Public Service Agency that the clerk mentioned earlier; $0.6 million for the Canada-Australia Exchange Program; and $0.1 million for the commission of inquiry for the investigation into the bombing of Air India Flight 182.
These increases are offset by the following decreases: a reduction of $1 million in the Office of the Coordinator for 2010 Olympics and G8 Security as he winds down; a $0.3 million reduction for expenditure controls put in a couple of years ago concerning public opinion research; a reduction of $0.3 million for efficiency savings announced in Budget 2007 related to procurement; a $0.2 million transfer to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, DFAIT, for the Canada-Australia Exchange Program for our employees who go to Australia on exchange — DFAIT that takes care of their arrangements; and a reduction of $0.1 million for the implementation of the funding strategy for the comprehensive components of 2011 Census of the population.
Senator Ringuette: How much of the almost $159 million is for advertising?
Ms. MacPherson: We do not do any advertising in the Privy Council Office. We do have a function in communications whereby we do coordination of advertising with respect to messaging that goes out on the economic action plan, for example. Under the government communications policy, that is the role of the Privy Council Office.
Senator Ringuette: How much money is that?
Ms. MacPherson: Do you mean for the communications function?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I do.
Ms. MacPherson: I do not know offhand how much we pay for the communications. That would be staff; probably 80 staff members do communications.
Senator Ringuette: You have 80 staff members, so almost 10 per cent of your staff is in communications.
Mr. Wouters: Much of that is to coordinate many of the communications efforts for the government. We provide that degree of coordination and also provide overall strategic advice on how to communicate certain policies and programs or as issues evolve. We play that role, as we do in many other functions, when it comes to public policy and so on. It is that coordination function that we do.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly would like to have all the information pertaining to the cost, the number of employees and the overall costs. If external consultants are involved in communications, I would like to know who they are, what the costs are and whether there were tenders with respect to all the communications being done from this particular budget.
Mr. Wouters: We will be pleased to provide that, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ringuette: I am very proud of the objective that you have set out for human resources. However, that is where the punchline comes. After a discussion with parliamentarians, Ms. Barrados identified that in the year 2009-10, there was a doubling of the contracting out of staff for different departments through the public service, which is a case of Treasury Board guidelines that are not being followed. I think that you are under the Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines in regard to contracting out of staff. There are particular rules, for instance, if it is just to replace someone who has an illness for a short period of time.
Ms. Barrados, in her last report, identified that all of the rules put in place by Treasury Board on the contracting out of staff have been broken. The doubling to $300 million a year for the contracting out of staff undermines the merit principle of the Public Service Act on acquiring people, who, from the outset should have the qualifications, and it gives them preferential treatment for job openings. Furthermore, these jobs are not advertised. Therefore, Canadians from across the country do not have the ability to even apply for those contracted jobs.
It is not even a double jeopardy. What is happening right now in the public service is more like six times jeopardy.
I am pleased that you are saying this, but the facts do not reflect what you are saying. I certainly would like to see the facts reflect what you are saying. Canadians across the country have fair and equal access to any kind of staffing that happens in the public service.
Ms. Meredith: You are referring to the use of temporary help services, which was the subject of a study done by the Public Service Commission and reported on this year.
While Ms. Barrados may have said, as well, that there has been an increase in the use of such services, I would add that the use of them is still approximately 1 per cent of the total personnel costs for the government. The use of temporary help is rather limited in nature, although it has increased.
There is no breach of the contracting regulations or policies in this regard. The issue that the president of the PSC was concerned about was whether these employees beginning as temporary help might gain entry into the public service. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those individuals have not met the merit principle to get into the public service. As I mentioned previously, that is a principle that PSC holds dear and protects.
The observation would be that, to the extent that individuals who do enter the public service after having been used as temporary help, I think she would say that they found no sort of particular mal intent. It was a question of managers wanting to do the most expedient thing, perhaps, and hiring in some cases temporary help when other forms of employment might have been available to them.
Just to provide that perspective, there could be some work to be done in terms of having more deliberate strategies to help managers use hiring processes that satisfy the commission that the transparency and access principles are being met.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe I have not expressed my comments well because I do not think that you have understood.
The issue, first, is that Ms. Barrados has identified that the three guidelines to contract out employees are not respected in contracting out employees and the purposes of contracting out employees.
Second, Ms. Barrados, last year, in a previous study, polled the public service and has identified, I think it was at the rate of 73 per cent of preferential treatment as being identified by the people who are working currently within the public service. Third, the bulk, that is 90 per cent, of the contracting out of staff is happening in the capital region, particularly, and is therefore restricted to the capital region citizens. This removes the ability from any Canadian, whether from the East coast or the West coast, of having a decent shot at a job for the public service in the future.
Mr. Wouters: I think you are raising two types of issues. The first is the use of contracting out and temporary help. We are aware of the Public Service Commission report. I would argue it was a very small sample, and it is 1 per cent of the overall payroll. There are issues there that clearly we need to look at, but in terms of the overall workforce, it is a very small amount.
On recruitment and hiring into the public service, we have gone to national area of selection.
Senator Ringuette: That is for advertised jobs.
Mr. Wouters: We are, I think, moving out in a very different way with recruitment into the public service and giving opportunities for all Canadians across the country to apply and to join the public service.
Senator Neufeld: I want to continue along Senator Ringuette's line of questioning. You said that the contracting out of staff represents only 1 per cent of the total workforce. Having come from British Columbia, it is a problem in any government. I should not say a problem; there is an issue or a discussion around how many people from out of the public service actually get work.
What would that figure be going back five or six years? Do you have any record that would tell me that five years ago it was 0.2 per cent, or would it be an average of 1 per cent over the last number of years? I am going back five years. Can you tell me that?
Ms. Meredith: I do not have the numbers, but I know that PSC reported that the value of temporary help services had increased. However that was over a period during which government operating expenditures increased also, so the overall personnel costs would have increased over that period as well.
Senator Neufeld: If you have any of that information, it would be helpful if you could pass it through to the clerk.
The renewal strategy and the recruitment process that you talked about is very interesting. In my province, we started hitting a brick wall with management — deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers — and retirement. People were staying on, and then retiring. We looked forward and saw that a big part of our management would be retiring, and nothing was in place to replace them.
How are you dealing with that, or do you even have that problem in the public service federally?
Mr. Wouters: You mean in terms of managers retiring?
Senator Neufeld: Yes, they retire and leave some holes in the system. How are you dealing with that?
Mr. Wouters: When you look across the public service, it is the case, because of the aging of people in the public service, that we are seeing somewhat of an increase in the overall attrition, though that has levelled off over the past year.
When you have a large percentage of the workforce leaving, there is no doubt that there is a potential knowledge loss. This is why we have introduced broader talent management exercises to look at who we have and when they plan to retire so that we know — particularly our executives cadre — where they are in terms of being able to retire without penalty. Generally, they will still stay around for two, three or four years beyond that, even though they could retire with full pension.
Doing that exercise of talent management allows us to do succession planning much better. Certain positions are much more difficult to staff than other positions, and, therefore, we can ensure that we have the appropriate succession planning ready to go. In many departments, we have moved to — for example, the executive level — not only having an assistant deputy minister but also an associate ADM who can work with that ADM for two or three years. Therefore, the associate ADMs meet the competencies and are prepared to move into those jobs.
We have tried to do that at a number of different levels within the different ranks of the public service, and with scientists as well. Our scientists have a long-running practice of coming back in an emeritus status even after they retire and continuing to share their knowledge. That is a model we could probably still look at more broadly in the public service, to have some of those individuals available.
We also have moved in a much more significant way — and again, I am talking more of the executive ranks but at all levels — to encouraging our executives, right up to the deputy level, to have a coach or mentor who was a former public servant. We have a fair number of people across the country who are quite keen to come back and provide that advice. We are finding that to be very helpful.
We also have the school, which can provide certain courses to ensure that particularly those who come in to the senior ranks, the management cadre, have the appropriate skills as they move into the management level.
It is not that we are not losing some of that knowledge over time, but we have a number of tools now that put us in a much better position than we were in five or ten years ago.
Senator Neufeld: That is very good to hear. I appreciate that response. You talked about recruitment in universities, and you are actively doing that now, which is great. I come from rural British Columbia. You also said that you would like to have a public service that represents all of the country, understanding Canada is a huge country.
When you say that you recruit out of universities, are you talking about the major centres, or do you go to the rural parts of provinces — and I will speak about my own province because I am not sure where all the rural universities are in other provinces — such as the university in Prince George in the North? Would you go to the Okanagan or the Kootenays, or do you actually hit the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University and those in the cities? There is quite a difference between people who live in the cities in B.C. and those who live in rural B.C.
Ms. Meredith: This is really an undertaking that PSC coordinates for all departments. They are on location at a number of campuses. They hit small communities as well as large communities. They are making an effort to reach people in rural communities especially who then need to take a public service test as part of the application process. This is really a question for them; I am just speaking from my knowledge of the direction they are moving in, which is to find ways to test those people through unproctored exams so that they can encourage them to participate without having to travel anywhere.
They have a very wide network of career fairs and presence on the ground, in the major centres and also in the smaller communities.
Ms. Hassard: In 2008-09, we asked the regional councils in every area of the country to undertake career fairs. They did not necessarily go on campuses but became a hub, bringing enterprise-wise employers from within the federal government and showcasing the jobs available. It was a different delivery model for career fairs, and it was very successful.
Senator Neufeld: That makes me happy, too, because I do think to represent the different regions and areas, we need to look at some of the rural parts of Canada to have that representation in the public service.
In your renewal strategy built on four pillars, you talked about more effective employee development and workplace improvements. Can you briefly tell me what kind of workplace improvements you mean? I do not mean this in a negative way, but in a positive way. What are you doing for that? You basically covered the development, but what about the workplace improvements?
Mr. Wouters: This is an area that I have focused on since I became clerk. I have made the argument that we can do much to recruit new public servants into the public service. However, if we do not have a workplace that is conducive to those public servants, will we be able to retain them?
It involves a number of different aspects. We still have some issues around how our back offices are organized. Most of our systems and our processes on HR, finance, et cetera, were built up department by department. While you can drive efficiencies department by department, most organizations — some of the HR and finance and these other processes — have looked across government, moving more to consolidation, more enterprise-wide, more IT-enabled solutions to provide better service.
Part of that is also that we can do more in looking at external service to Canadians. Therefore, I think we can make many improvements on how we provide our services to our own employees and how we provide services to Canadians.
It has much to do with the various tools we have. Many young public servants are coming in with a whole different approach and mindset to work, starting with web 2.0. This is part of their lives, so we need to find ways to introduce these tools into the Public Service Commission of Canada.
We are now experimenting with these within the public service, whether that is using wikis or blogs to look at issues across the public service. It gives us the real advantage of being able to reach out to many public servants that we could not reach out to before. I am even tweeting these days, although most people say my tweets are so boring that they do not want to read them. Most importantly, we are signalling that we are trying to accommodate the new workplace tools because young people will expect and demand that.
It is how we work; it is the tools we work with; it is how we provide the basic HR finance services we provide. On some of this, it is not rocket science; many organizations have done this. We just need to adopt some of those technologies to move ahead.
You probably have heard of our pay system. You have heard about our IT systems; some of them are 40 years old. That is the quality of service you are getting if you are a public servant. You have to rely on that, and they do not necessarily always function as they should. It requires some investment in those areas as well.
Senator Murray: To follow up on Ms. Meredith's answer to Senator Neufeld a few minutes ago, for the record, describe the respective roles of PSC and the line departments in recruitment, and also where you fit in as the head of the public service. Are you quality control?
Mr. Wouters: I am not sure if I can say that. When it comes to recruitment, the PSC provides a service to all departments. If a department wants to bring in new public servants, PSC will handle the process if the department wants PSC to do that. They will use that service for their own needs, and many departments do that. Some departments will undertake their own recruitment over and above that.
Senator Murray: What about Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, DFAIT?
Mr. Wouters: DFAIT and the foreign service officers generally do that — actually, PSC, I believe, does that for DFAIT. I believe the Department of Finance Canada has their own recruitment initiative, and a few other departments do, as well.
It is up to the department to determine whether they want to use PSC, and most do. There may be some very technical areas where some of the departments will undertake their own recruitment.
Quality control is handled not only by me; it is also Ms. Meredith, the Treasury Board Secretariat, who ensures candidates meet certain competencies when they come into the system. Whether it is an economist, a scientist or a technician, certain competencies have to be met. They are set out as part of our overall recruitment strategies within the public service.
Senator Murray: The Privy Council Office itself does not become directly involved, does it, except with your own staff or very senior appointments?
Mr. Wouters: We are involved in all senior appointments. I am involved, particularly with Ms. Meredith, in advising the Prime Minister. Other than that, we are responsible for Governor-in-Council appointments.
Senator Murray: On the period of financial restraint that we are living through, you have told us that you will not be recruiting as extensively now as you had been over the last couple of years. However, there is no freeze on hiring and no freeze on salaries. There is a freeze on departmental budgets. Is this apt to lead to layoffs?
Mr. Wouters: I do not think so because we are seeing a pretty significant attrition rate right now. Departments will be able to manage those budgets by managing the attrition rate versus recruitment.
My view is that we will need to continue to recruit, maybe at a lower rate than we have previously. That will have to vary department by department. At the end of the day, that will be the deputy's overall responsibility, given the particular nature of the situation of their overall operating budget, to determine where it is best to maintain the restraint.
Senator Murray: If a deputy wanted to lay off 50 or 60 people today or tomorrow, would your attitude be to let the manager manage, or would you expect to be consulted?
Mr. Wouters: I feel deputies have the responsibility to manage their HR. If the government decides to reduce a program area, through attrition, many public servants are able to find employment elsewhere. We have workforce adjustment provisions that give them that degree of protection; if there are other jobs for which they are qualified, they can be transferred to those.
In our restraint exercise, generally we have found that while X number of public servants have been affected, many have been able to find jobs elsewhere because of the overall attrition that we have seen over the last number of years in the public service.
Senator Murray: Find jobs elsewhere in the public service, do you mean?
Mr. Wouters: Yes. They may lose their positions in one department but other departments are recruiting.
Senator Murray: I would like to ask you a question about special operating agencies, an entirely different subject than the ones we were discussing, although Senator Runciman asked about Crown corporations. Special operating agencies would be under your purview at PCO. Leaving aside Revenue Canada and Parks Canada — I am not sure you would even describe them as that because we legislated 10 years ago to give them their special status — do you know roughly how many special operating agencies there are?
Mr. Wouters: I do not. This is an ongoing debate. We probably have around 200 different organizations in the Government of Canada. The ones you have alluded to have their own legislation. Many of them are established through different legislation, but special operating agencies are generally self-contained agencies within departments.
They could have somewhat increased flexibilities, but in the end, the executive director is still accountable to the deputy minister and on to the minister.
Senator Murray: Treasury Board was here yesterday, and I could not quite get to them so I said that I would save the questions for PCO tonight. I was wondering what the common thread is. I had a little experience with one or two of them a long time ago, and I wondered how they were working.
What is the common thread? Is it the added flexibility? Is there any fiscal autonomy? I was asking about the Canadian Coast Guard.
I have come off two weeks of travelling with the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the coast of Newfoundland and the coast of British Columbia looking at lighthouses. Lighthouses come under the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, as you may know. The Canadian Coast Guard, I discovered — I did not even know this, until the other day — is a special operating agency. Therefore, it must be assumed to have certain flexibility, if not autonomy. As it happens, this has to do with the almost perennial attempt of various governments to try to de-staff lighthouses on both coasts.
Mr. Wouters: I know this one well.
Senator Murray: Good, we are getting somewhere. You will look into this for me; will you not?
When people come forward and say that these lightkeepers are doing important work for ecology, weather, heritage or something else, CCG says, ``That is not our mandate.'' They say that it is Canadian Heritage, Environment Canada or something else. If they are doing this important work as a special operating agency, CCG ought to be able to negotiate the appropriate arrangements with these other departments to give these lightkeepers, if they are qualified, a horizontal mandate. I do not want to tax you with that tonight.
You see what I am getting at, though. How much potential is there in a special operating agency to do that kind of thing?
Mr. Wouters: Special operating agencies have a number of advantages if they have a very contained mandate, which CCG does have. They provide vessels for search and rescue but also for science and enforcement. If you go back to the model of the Canadian Coast Guard, at one point, it was a self-contained organization within Transport Canada. It then became part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, and at the time, it became part of the organizational structure of DFO. Therefore, the regional director general, RDG, for Nova Scotia had the responsibility for fish management. He also had the responsibility for CCG for Nova Scotia. It is the same for the RDG for the Gulf and the RDG for Newfoundland.
We realized after a number of years, that it is very difficult to run CCG on a region-by-region basis because these ships are needed at any point in time if they are icebreakers, enforcement or science ships in any part of the Atlantic in Eastern Canada. Therefore, moving it all back into a self-contained unit under a special operating agency from an efficiency and effectiveness point of view of the organization has greatly enhanced it. It is moving back to where we were before. It is still under the department, but it is self-contained. The regional director for CCG in Nova Scotia no longer reports to Transport Canada. He will report directly to the commissioner or the vice commissioner of CCG, and, therefore, they can operate on a more integrated basis overall.
Generally, they are given somewhat more flexibility and certain contracting and the like. I do not know the particular conditions of CCG within DFO.
Senator Murray: That is okay for now.
Senator Dickson: I was pleased to learn of your progress in increasing the role of women in the public service, particularly on page 7 of your report where women now represent 43 per cent of our executives and 38 per cent of the deputy ministers.
Mr. Wouters: There is a good example here today.
Senator Dickson: I noticed that. You demonstrated action; I noted that as well as the representation of visible minorities having gone from 3 per cent to 6 per cent.
Coming from the Atlantic region, I was very interested in the target recruitment program, as was Senator Neufeld, on a regional basis and, particularly, in relation to Atlantic Canada. In other words, what percentage of new recruits would come from Atlantic Canada, and why is their percentage so high or so low? How do we stack up? You can get back to me in writing later.
Ms. Meredith: I have in front of me the PSC's annual report data that has recruitment from each province indicated. I will have to do the arithmetic. At any rate, we have over 2,000 jobs in New Brunswick; over 2,000 in Nova Scotia; 441 in Prince Edward Island; and about 866 in Newfoundland. That reflects hiring activity in 2009-10.
Senator Ringuette: Is that in Ottawa?
Ms. Meredith: No, these are from those provinces.
Mr. Wouters: Some of them would be recruited here to Ottawa, but some would be recruited out in the region. Sixty per cent of our workforce is still in the region, and many of these would be recruited to take on regional jobs.
Ms. Meredith: This data appears to indicate where the people were hired from, so there is significant hiring in that region.
Senator Dickson: What is the percentage presently of people from the Maritimes or Atlantic Canada in the executive roles in the Government of Canada?
Ms. Meredith: I do not have that information.
Mr. Wouters: This would be entrance level.
Senator Dickson: I realize that, but I am interested in how many people in the executive level of the government are from Atlantic Canada. It is supposed to represent the mosaic of Canada, as Senator Ringuette said, across Canada.
Mr. Wouters: I do not think we maintain those statistics, once someone has been in the public service for a number of years. I am from Saskatchewan, and I tell everyone every day that I am from Saskatchewan, so they generally know. I do not think we keep those statistics over time.
Ms. Meredith: I do not believe so.
Senator Dickson: It would be interesting to have them. I have not met too many from the Maritimes up here in senior executive positions; of course, I have only been here a short time.
My last question relates to exchange programs between the federal government and the provincial governments. Would you like to comment on what exchange programs are in effect so that there is more cross-fertilization between departments — what you do, how you do it and why you do not do some things?
Ms. Meredith: Out of our office, we run an interchange program that allows for exchange of executives either with provincial governments or with the private sector. It is a program that departments can avail themselves of. We do not identify individuals. However, it is a way for people to develop their own talent or our own public service talent by giving them diverse opportunities outside the public service. Sometimes we are accused of being insular, and this is a good way to get people out to find a different experience. As well, it is a very good way for us to bring in talent for a maximum of three years with the possibility of extending for another single year, so these are temporary assignments.
That is what we have available within my office to allow for that kind of cross-fertilization and exchange.
Mr. Wouters: I have run a couple of regional departments around DFO for five years and also Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC. We have tremendous public servants who work in the regions. In fact, they have some of the hardest jobs in the Government of Canada. At least I have felt that in DFO with many of our fisheries officers and fish management people.
One of the challenges we have — and it cuts both ways — is that it is very difficult for me as a deputy to get some of my regional colleagues to move to Ottawa, and, vice versa, to get Ottawa public servants to move to a region. More of that would be beneficial for headquarters and for the region. You could have people come out from Ottawa and come back. You have some regional people that come here. However, as I said, 60 per cent of those public servants are out in the regions, and they tend to be the ones that are delivering the services every day on the ground, and dealing with Canadians each and every day. As a deputy minister, I was always very proud of my central agency colleagues, but I was very proud of those regional employees. Many of them had some very hard jobs.
Senator Dickson: I agree wholeheartedly with you, but it would be easier for people in the region to deliver effective services if there was better communication between the executive branch in Ottawa and the regions. From experience, I know some of the federal employees at the regional level are frustrated with the go-around process; it is difficult to get definitive answers from Ottawa.
Mr. Wouters: I think it varies from department to department. I do not disagree; I think there is a challenge. Again, I go back to my experience, particularly in DFO. I always said that the people at the centre can develop the best policy you want, but if you do not have the regional guys with you, it will not get delivered. At the end of the day, they are the ones who will determine the success or the failure of a policy.
You are right; if those people do not consult and work closely with those developing the policy, then I do not think we get effective delivery at the end of day.
Senator Dickson: Along that line, as something to follow up on, I would appreciate very much if you would distribute to the committee the exchange programs that are available both for the private sector and for provincial governments with the federal government. I would appreciate that.
If we could see those criteria because, as I understand it, it is not something that you are pushing or trying to raise the profile of; it is more a situation of, for example, if I and ask you, whether you have it, and then you will discuss how my company or my department from Nova Scotia can participate.
Mr. Wouters: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: During the summer, I read a document about the state of human resources for Health Canada, with the contracting of doctors and nurses. Of particular interest is the fact that the system works whereby Correctional Service of Canada will go through Health Canada to provide them with the human resources they need in the medical field. It seems that a doctor from New Brunswick working at Correctional Service of Canada would be paid quite a bit less than one working elsewhere in the country, and the situation is the same for nurses. It seems that is the result of Treasury Board guidelines.
I would certainly like to see the Treasury Board guidelines and compare them to that highly expert report that was provided to Health Canada.
Mr. Wouters: The salary of nurses and doctors are determined through collective bargaining.
Senator Ringuette: These are contracted out.
Mr. Wouters: I thought you were referring to public service employees. I do not think the Treasury Board has specific guidelines as to how we contract out for doctors, but we could follow up.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, they do.
Mr. Wouters: We have contracting policies, but I am not aware of the specific policies for how we contract out to doctors and nurses. We can follow up and see if in fact that is the case.
The Chair: Let us know. That would be helpful.
Honourable senators, on your behalf, let me thank Mr. Wouters, Ms. Meredith, Ms. Hassard and Ms. MacPherson for being here. We have had Treasury Board, Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission before us on a number of different occasions, but we will have to put you into the rotation so that we can periodically talk to one another. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)